No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVE -We explored whether cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and the effects of fenofibrate differed in subjects with and without metabolic syndrome and according to various features of metabolic syndrome defined by the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) in subjects with type 2 diabetes in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -The prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its features was calculated. Cox proportional models adjusted for age, sex, CVD status, and baseline A1C levels were used to determine the independent contributions of metabolic syndrome features to total CVD event rates and the effects of fenofibrate.RESULTS -More than 80% of FIELD participants met the ATP III criteria for metabolic syndrome. Each ATP III feature of metabolic syndrome, apart from increased waist circumference, increased the absolute risk of CVD events over 5 years by at least 3%. Those with marked dyslipidemia (elevated triglycerides Ն2.3 mmol/l and low HDL cholesterol) were at the highest risk of CVD (17.8% over 5 years). Fenofibrate significantly reduced CVD events in those with low HDL cholesterol or hypertension. The largest effect of fenofibrate to reduce CVD risk was observed in subjects with marked dyslipidemia in whom a 27% relative risk reduction (95% CI 9 -42, P ϭ 0.005; number needed to treat ϭ 23) was observed. Subjects with no prior CVD had greater risk reductions than the entire group.CONCLUSIONS -Metabolic syndrome components identify higher CVD risk in individuals with type 2 diabetes, so the absolute benefits of fenofibrate are likely to be greater when metabolic syndrome features are present. The highest risk and greatest benefits of fenofibrate are seen among those with marked hypertriglyceridemia. Diabetes Care 32:493-498, 2009

OBJECTIVE -Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is increased in type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of 10 mg of atorvastatin versus placebo on CVD prevention in subjects with type 2 diabetes and LDL cholesterol levels below contemporary guideline targets.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg of atorvastatin or placebo in a 4-year, double-blind, parallel-group study. The composite primary end point comprised cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, recanalization, coronary artery bypass surgery, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and worsening or unstable angina requiring hospitalization.RESULTS -A total of 2,410 subjects with type 2 diabetes were randomized. Mean LDL cholesterol reduction in the atorvastatin group over 4 years was 29% versus placebo (P Ͻ 0.0001). When we compared atorvastatin versus placebo, composite primary end point rates were 13.7 and 15.0%, respectively (hazard ratio 0.90 [95% CI 0.73-1.12]). In the subset of 1,905 subjects without prior myocardial infarction or interventional procedure, 10.4% of atorvastatin-and 10.8% of placebo-treated subjects experienced a primary end point (0.97 [0.74 -1.28]). In the 505 subjects with prior myocardial infarction or interventional procedure, 26.2% of atorvastatin-and 30.8% of placebo-treated subjects experienced a primary end point (0.82 [0.59 -1.15]). Relative risk reductions in fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction were 27% overall (P ϭ 0.10) and 19% (P ϭ 0.41) and 36% (P ϭ 0.11) for subjects without and with prior myocardial infarction or interventional procedure, respectively. CONCLUSIONS -Composite end point reductions were not statistically significant. This result may relate to the overall study design, the types of subjects recruited, the nature of the primary end point, and the protocol changes required because of changing treatment guidelines. For these reasons, the results of the Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease Endpoints in Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (ASPEN) did not confirm the benefit of therapy but do not detract from the imperative that the majority of diabetic patients are at risk of coronary heart disease and deserve LDL cholesterol lowering to the currently recommended targets.

SummaryBackgroundAmputations in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus substantially impair their quality of life and impose high costs on health-care systems. Our aim was to assess the effect of fenofibrate on amputation events in a large cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsIn the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study, 9795 patients aged 50–75 years with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned by computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive fenofibrate 200 mg per day (n=4895) or matching placebo (n=4900) for 5 years' duration. Information about non-traumatic amputation—a prespecified tertiary endpoint of the study—was routinely gathered. Clinicians who were masked to treatment allocation adjudicated amputations as minor or major (below or above the ankle, respectively). Amputations were also classified on the basis of whether or not large-vessel disease was present in the limb, to distinguish those related to large-artery atherosclerosis from those predominantly related to microvascular disease. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). The FIELD study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64783481.FindingsAll 9795 patients were included in the ITT population. 115 patients had one or more non-traumatic lower-limb amputations due to diabetes. Previous cardiovascular disease, microvascular disease, previous non-traumatic amputation or skin ulcer, smoking, and longer duration of diabetes were more frequent in patients who had amputations during the trial than in those who had other cardiovascular events or in those who had neither event (all p<0·001 for three-way comparison). Mean lipid concentrations differed between patients who had on-study amputations and those who had other cardiovascular events or neither event, but by no more than 0·2 mmol/L. The risks of first amputation (45 vs 70 events; hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94; p=0·02) and minor amputation events without known large-vessel disease (18 vs 34 events; 0·53, 0·30–0·94; p=0·027) were lower for patients assigned to fenofibrate than for patients assigned to placebo, with no difference between groups in risk of major amputations (24 vs 26 events; 0·93, 0·53–1·62; p=0·79).InterpretationClassic markers of macrovascular and microvascular risk were associated with lower extremity amputations in patients with type 2 diabetes. Treatment with fenofibrate was associated with a lower risk of amputations, particularly minor amputations without known large-vessel disease, probably through non-lipid mechanisms. These findings could lead to a change in standard treatment for the prevention of diabetes-related lower-limb amputations.FundingLaboratoires Fournier SA (now part of Solvay Pharmaceuticals) and National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

ObjectiveThe aims of this point-prevalence study were to investigate a representative inpatient population to determine the prevalence of people admitted to hospital for the reason of a foot-related condition, and identify associated independent factors.MethodsParticipants were adult inpatients in 5 different representative hospitals, admitted for any reason on the day of data collection. Maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired inpatients were excluded. Participants were surveyed on a range of self-reported demographic, social determinant, medical history, foot disease history, self-care, footwear, past foot treatment prior to hospitalisation and reason for admission variables. Physical examinations were performed to clinically diagnose a range of foot disease and foot risk factor variables. Independent factors associated with being admitted to hospital for the primary or secondary reason of a foot-related condition were analysed using multivariate logistic regression.ResultsOverall, 733 participants were included; mean (SD) age 62 (19) years, male 55.8%. Foot-related conditions were the primary reason for admission in 54 participants (7.4% (95% CI 5.7% to 9.5%)); 36 for foot disease (4.9%), 15 foot trauma (2.1%). Being admitted for the primary reason of a foot-related condition was independently associated with foot infection, critical peripheral arterial disease, foot trauma and past foot treatment by a general practitioner and surgeon (p<0.01). Foot-related conditions were a secondary reason for admission in 28 participants (3.8% (2.6% to 5.6%)), and were independently associated with diabetes and current foot ulcer (p<0.01).ConclusionsThis study, the first in a representative inpatient population, suggests the direct inpatient burden caused by foot-related conditions is significantly higher than previously appreciated. Findings indicate 1 in every 13 inpatients was primarily admitted because of a foot-related condition with most due to foot disease or foot trauma. Future strategies are recommended to investigate and intervene in the considerable inpatient burden caused by foot-related conditions.

The aims of this study were to investigate the point prevalence, and associated independent factors, for foot disease (ulcers, infections and ischaemia) in a representative hospitalised population. We included 733 (83%) of 883 eligible adult inpatients across five representative Australian hospitals on one day. We collected an extensive range of self-reported characteristics from participants. We examined all participants to clinically diagnose foot disease (ulcers, infections and ischaemia) and amputation procedures. Overall, 72 participants (9·8%) [95% confidence interval (CI):7·2-11·3%] had foot disease. Foot ulcers, in 49 participants (6·7%), were independently associated with peripheral neuropathy, peripheral arterial disease, previous foot ulcers, trauma and past surgeon treatment (P < 0·05). Foot infections, in 24 (3·3%), were independently associated with previous foot ulcers, trauma and past surgeon treatment (P < 0·01). Ischaemia, in 33 (4·5%), was independently associated with older age, smokers and past surgeon treatment (P < 0·01). Amputation procedures, in 14 (1·9%), were independently associated with foot infections (P < 0·01). We found that one in every ten inpatients had foot disease, and less than half of those had diabetes. After adjusting for diabetes, factors linked with foot disease were similar to those identified in diabetes-related literature. The overall inpatient foot disease burden is similar in size to well-known medical conditions and should receive similar attention.

Risedronate 5 mg prevents bone loss in early postmenopausal women, is well tolerated, and represents an effective choice to maintain bone mass and prevent osteoporosis.