Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Diabetes Care. 2014 Jun;37(6):1721-8. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2334. Epub 2014 Mar 4.

Outcomes of combined cardiovascular risk factor management strategies in type 2 diabetes: the ACCORD randomized trial.

Author information

1
HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, MN karen.l.margolis@healthpartners.com.
2
HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, MN.
3
Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC.
4
University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC.
5
Cincinnati Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
6
Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, TN.
7
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD.
8
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
9
Berman Center for Outcomes and Clinical Research, Minneapolis, MN.
10
University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
11
Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
12
Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
13
Louis Stokes Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
14
Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To compare effects of combinations of standard and intensive treatment of glycemia and either blood pressure (BP) or lipids in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:

ACCORD enrolled 10,251 type 2 diabetes patients aged 40-79 years at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Participants were randomly assigned to hemoglobin A1c goals of <6.0% (<42 mmol/mol; intensive glycemia) or 7.0-7.9% (53-63 mmol/mol; standard glycemia) and then randomized a second time to either 1) systolic BP goals of <120 mmHg (intensive BP) or <140 mmHg (standard BP) or 2) simvastatin plus fenofibrate (intensive lipid) or simvastatin plus placebo (standard lipid). Proportional hazards models were used to assess combinations of treatment assignments on the composite primary (deaths due to CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], and nonfatal stroke) and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS:

In the BP trial, risk of the primary outcome was lower in the groups intensively treated for glycemia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.91), BP (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-1.00), or both (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52-0.96) compared with combined standard BP and glycemia treatment. For secondary outcomes, MI was significantly reduced by intensive glycemia treatment and stroke by intensive BP treatment; most other HRs were neutral or favored intensive treatment groups. In the lipid trial, the general pattern of results showed no evidence of benefit of intensive regimens (whether single or combined) compared with combined standard lipid and glycemia treatment. The mortality HR was 1.33 (95% CI 1.02-1.74) in the standard lipid/intensive glycemia group compared with the standard lipid/standard glycemia group.

CONCLUSIONS:

In the ACCORD BP trial, compared with combined standard treatment, intensive BP or intensive glycemia treatment alone improved major CVD outcomes, without additional benefit from combining the two. In the ACCORD lipid trial, neither intensive lipid nor glycemia treatment produced an overall benefit, but intensive glycemia treatment increased mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00000620.

PMID:
24595629
PMCID:
PMC4030092
DOI:
10.2337/dc13-2334
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center