GodMoon.com - CSS Drop Down Menu




 

Diabetes Lipids Adrenals Thyroid

Is there any evidence in Type 2 diabetics for  albuminuria reduction (delaying nephropathy progression) with ACEI ?

References:

  1. Ravid M, Brosh D, Levi Z, Bar-Dayan Y, Ravid D, Rachmani R. Long term stabilising effect of Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition on plasma creatinine and on proteinuria in normotensive type II diabetic patients. Ann Int Med. 1993;118:577-581.                                                    

  2. Ahmad J, Siddiqui MA, Ahmad H. Effective postponement of diabetic nephropathy with Enalapril in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1576-1581.                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9314638&dopt=Abstract                                                                                                                                

  3. Sano T, Hotta N, Kawamura T, et al. Effects of long term Enalapril treatment on persistent microalbuminuria in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients: results of a 4 year prospective randomised study. Diabet Med. 1996;13:120-124.

 

 

Is diabetes really a coronary equivalent state?

 Haffners study, (Haffner SM, Lehto S, Ronnemaa T et al. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 229–34) much quoted, is used to back up the statement that diabetes is a coronary risk equivalent. But it is important to note that Haffner's study was underpowered for death. There were only 69 non-diabetic patients with MI , while there were 800 diabetic patients.

The HPS included about 6000 individuals with diabetes (4000 as primary prevention high risk individuals) — the largest number in any statin trial. The CVD event rate for placebo-treated diabetics without coronary heart disease was 18.6%, compared with 22.5% for non-diabetics with coronary heart disease. Thus, the HPS confirms diabetes as a "coronary-equivalent" risk disorder for CVD.

 

 

Is poor glycaemic control a risk factor for macrovascular events or is hypertension the only factor?

Epidemiological analysis reveals that for every 1% increase in the HbA1c level, the incidence of myocardial infarction increased by 14% with a 43% increase in peripheral vascular disease .  The risk of a cardiovascular event increases by 10% to 30%. This was not above any particular threshold value, instead, glycaemia is continuously related to the risk of cardiovascular disease and other complications associated with Type 2 diabetes

nRef: Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complication of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ. 2000;321:405-412.

A meta-analysis that included the DCCT results showed a 45% reduction in the total number of cardiovascular events and a 28% reduction, in the risk of a first cardiovascular event which was not statistically significant.

n

nRef: Lawson MN, Gerstein HC, Tsui E, Zinman B. Effect of intensive therapy on early macrovascular disease in young individuals with type 1 diabetes. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(Suppl 2):B35-B39.

Other studies have shown that the risk of cardiovascular disease rises with increasing  blood glucose levels.

1. Coutinho M, Gerstein HC, Wang Y, Yusuf S. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 233–40.

2. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Andrew H et al. BMJ 2000; 321: 40512.

n

As regards evidence for cardiovascular mortality improvement with glycaemic control, we are still waiting!

 

 

 

At what creatinine level should metformin be stopped?

NICE guidelines recommend 130 mmol/L of creatinine as a cut off for considering metformin discontinuation. Note word Guidelines. That is all it should be. Definitely a magic number out of some hat.  In the individual patient, depending on whether withdrawal of metformin would adversely influence short term and long term outcomes, I would tend to, and encourage my diabetes nurse to tend to, persevere with metformin. A creatinine above 200 mmol/L seems to be more reasonable to me, as slight fluctuations in the 120-170 range often settle or stay stable for a few more years. Given metformin's cardiovascular benefits in the obese, and the fact that renal impairment patients are even more at risk for cardiovascular events, I feel guideline revision is warranted. Withdrawing metformin and fighting a losing battle with rising sugars should give enough time for the osmotic diuresis and dehydration to worsen kidney failure in the short term!.  Where have all those EBM buffs gone when silly guidelines are put out?

 

 

Are oral hypoglycaemic agents safe in pregnancy?

A brave randomised controlled trial in 2000 suggested the safety of glyburide in pregnant gestational diabetics. N Engl J Med. 2000 Oct 19;343(16):1134-8.     Glyburide was not detected in the cord serum of any infant.   Recent studies seem to suggest equal efficacy of glyburide and insulin in gestational diabetes, although that comes as no surprise, since efficacy was never the actual issue. Instead safety seems to reasonable although concerns regarding preeclampsia have been raised in a recent retrospective  analysis.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;193(1):118-24.   Cost wise, glyburide may have benefits as well compared to insulin J Perinatol. 2002 Jul-Aug;22(5):403-6.    in addition to ease of use.

With regard to use of insulin sensitizers as metformin in pregnant patients with polycystic ovarian disease, the views are varied  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jun;16(3):245-50  in the absence of randomised control trials around which the whole world revolves these days. While miscarriage and gestational diabetes seem to be more common in polycystic ovary syndrome, evidence that these can be improved with metformin is awaited from trials in the future. Good old personal experiences supported by peer group experiences should still find a strong place in decision making to use these drugs while awaiting further evidence through trials. (personal view)  Remembering that "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence", is crucial to avoid denying the benefits of drugs that are "more likely" to be beneficial than harmful based on current evidence, while waiting years for delayed evidence to come through at the mercy of the  whims and competitions of pharmaceutical organisations. Metformin use seems safe during lactation as well.   MJA 2004; 181 (3): 174-175  Realistic sane practical advice  from Australia is available at MJA 2004; 180 (9): 462-464

 

 

Should all diabetics be on Aspirin?

Diabetes UK recommends that Aspirin should be considered in all patients with diabetes aged >30 and with any of the factors below:

 

1. hypertension (>140/80) though BP must be controlled to <150/90 before starting (BHS guideline)

2. 10 year CHD risk >15%

3. Dyslipidaemia Cholesterol>5.0, LDL>2.6, HDL<1.2

4. Smoker

5. Proteinuria or microalbuminuria

6. renal impairment (Cr>150)

7. Family hx CHD

8. BMI>25

9. Indo-Asian background

10. Retinopathy

the evidence for many of these indications is poor. Primary prevention guidelines are based on evidence from Physicians Health Study (NEJM 1989;321:129-35), ETDRS (JAMA 1992;268:292-1300), HOT (Lancet 1998;351:1755-62) and Antiplatelet Trialists (APT).
These trials all contained patients with diabetes. In addition data from Thrombosis Prevention Trial (TPT) (Lancet 1998;351:233-41)on side effects has been used.


Combined results from APT, TPT and HOT suggest that 1.1 vascular events were prevented per year of aspirin treatment, whilst 0.9 excess bleeds occurred. The control group risk in these studies was 1% per year (10% over 10years). By interpreting this conservatively, the threshold for intervention has been set at 15% 10 year risk for primary prevention. This is in keeping with the recommendations in the Joint British Societies and British Hypertension Society guidelines. Realistically, most people (men and women) with diabetes aged >50 will exceed this level of risk.
The numbers in the trials in the 30-50 age group with diabetes are actually very small and it is difficult to make definitive comments regarding the benefits
of aspirin.

Should type 2 diabetic patients not on insulin be doing self monitoring of glucose at home?

Two of the six studies available to date report a significant lowering effect of self-monitoring of blood glucose on HbA1c. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20 April 2005 in Issue 2, 2005.   But I believe it is the frequency (how often) that should be the focus rather than whether to monitor or not. Monitoring is motivating at least in the worried "well" with good figures, while it can potentially pick up early deterioration of control during infective episodes to prompt early hospital admission.

Are diabetes nurses any good?

Apparently not! ................................according to the Cochrane analysis!

 

Insulin Resistance IGT Diabetes Metformin