Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death among the over 16,000 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who were enrolled in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial.
Two-thirds (66.3%) of all 798 deaths after a median 2.1 years of follow-up were caused by one of five cardiovascular (CV) conditions, with sudden cardiac death accounting for the largest share (30.1%) of the total, Ilaria Cavallari, MD, PhD, and associates said in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
It was a pair of laboratory measurements, however, that had the largest subdistribution hazard ratios. “Interestingly, the magnitude of associations of abnormal N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide [sHR, 2.82] and high-sensitivity troponin T [sHR, 2.46] measured in a stable population were greater than clinical variables in the prediction of all causes of death,” Cavallari and associates said.CVD Remains Leading Cause of Death in Type 2 Diabetes – Medscape – Apr 06, 2021 — https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/948849?src=rss
Catching up on diabetes and found several interesting studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes status, both type 1 and type 2, independently increases the adverse impacts of COVID-19. Potentially modifiable factors (e.g., HbA1c) had significant but modest impact compared with comparatively static factors (e.g., race and insurance) in type 1 diabetes, indicating an urgent and continued need to mitigate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection risk in this community.COVID-19 Severity Is Tripled in the Diabetes Community: A Prospective Analysis of the Pandemic’s Impact in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes — http://Diabetes Care 2021 Feb; 44(2): 526-532. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-2260
CONCLUSIONS: Social vulnerability contributes considerably to the probability of hospitalization among individuals with COVID-19 and diabetes with associated comorbidities. These findings can inform mitigation strategies for populations at the highest risk of severe COVID-19.Incremental Risk of Developing Severe COVID-19 Among Mexican Patients With Diabetes Attributed to Social and Health Care Access Disadvantages — http://Diabetes Care 2021 Feb; 44(2): 373-380. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-2192
This study shows that diabetes is associated with a greater risk of fatal COVID-19, influenza/pneumonia, and CHD in both sexes. However, unlike for CHD, there are no sex differences in the association between diabetes and death from COVID-19 or influenza/pneumonia. Our finding that diabetes is associated with higher risk of COVID-19 mortality is consistent with other studies (1–4). A study of 61 million individuals in England showed that over a third of all in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths occurred in those with diabetes, and those with diabetes had higher odds of in-hospital COVID-19–related death than those without diabetes (1). In contrast to our study, however, that study suggested that women with diabetes were at higher risk of COVID-19–related mortality than men (1). Our results suggest that worse glycemic control might further increase risk of COVID-19 mortality among those with diabetes. Some studies have also reported that individuals with undiagnosed diabetes are particularly at increased risk of severe COVID-19 infections (3,4). Although relatively few participants had undiagnosed diabetes in the current study, we showed that undiagnosed diabetes was associated with a 3.5-fold excess risk of COVID-19 mortality in men. Although there were no sex differences in the association between HbA1c levels and COVID-19 mortality, the finding that associations are broadly similar across sexes and diseases with the exception of women with CHD is interesting, and it is important when considering mechanistic explanations of the female disadvantage in CHD. Overall, these findings indicate that strategies to prevent diabetes, to promptly identify individuals with diabetes, and to improve glycemic control among those with diabetes could lead to better COVID-19 outcomes for both sexes.Diabetes and COVID-19–Related Mortality in Women and Men in the UK Biobank: Comparisons With Influenza/Pneumonia and Coronary Heart Disease — http://Diabetes Care 2021 Feb; 44(2): e22-e24. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-2378
Take home lesson: don’t develop diabetes.
OBJECTIVE To assess the relation of type 2 diabetes occurring earlier (age <55 years) versus later in life to the risk of cardiovascular death and to diabetes in offspring.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In the Framingham Heart Study, a community-based prospective cohort study, glycemic status was ascertained at serial examinations over six decades among 5,571 first- and second-generation participants with mortality data and 2,123 second-generation participants who initially did not have diabetes with data on parental diabetes status. We assessed cause of death in a case (cardiovascular death)–control (noncardiovascular death) design and incident diabetes in offspring in relation to parental early-onset diabetes.
RESULTS Among the participants in two generations (N = 5,571), there were 1,822 cardiovascular deaths (including 961 coronary deaths). The odds of cardiovascular versus noncardiovascular death increased with decreasing age of diabetes onset (P < 0.001 trend). Compared with never developing diabetes, early-onset diabetes conferred a 1.81-fold odds (95% CI 1.10–2.97, P = 0.02) of cardiovascular death and 1.75-fold odds (0.96–3.21, P = 0.07) of coronary death, whereas later-onset diabetes was not associated with greater risk for either (P = 0.09 for cardiovascular death; P = 0.51 for coronary death). In second-generation participants, having a parent with early-onset diabetes increased diabetes risk by 3.24-fold (1.73–6.07), whereas having one or both parents with late-onset diabetes increased diabetes risk by 2.19-fold (1.50–3.19).
CONCLUSIONS Our findings provide evidence for a diabetes subgroup with an early onset, a stronger association with cardiovascular death, and higher transgenerational transmission.Diabetes Care 2020 Dec; 43(12): 3086-3093. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-1758
Translation – The earlier you develop diabetes your risk of CVD and coronary death is higher. An if one or both of your parents developed either early onset or late onset diabetes you’re screwed.
Siopsis et al., JHND Early View Background The management of diabetes costs in excess of $1.3 trillion per annum worldwide. Diet is central to the management of type 2 diabetes. It is not known whether dietetic intervention is cost effective. This scoping review aimed to map the existing literature concerning the cost effectiveness of medical […]Cost effectiveness of dietetic intervention in management of type 2 diabetes — Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics Notes
Of 2387 abstracts assessed for eligibility, four studies combining 22 765 adults with type 2 diabetes were included. Dietetic intervention was shown to be cost‐effective in terms of diabetes‐related healthcare costs and hospital charges, at the same time as also reducing the risk of cumulative days at work lost to less than half and the risk of disability ‘sick’ days at work to less than one‐seventh.
Conclusions: The findings highlight the importance of advocacy for medical nutrition therapy for people with type 2 diabetes, with respect to alleviating the great global economic burden from this condition. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the factors that mediate and moderate cost effectiveness and to allow for the generalisation of the findings.First published: 14 October 2020
Sex Differences in Coronary Artery Calcium and Mortality From Coronary Heart Disease, Cardiovascular Disease, and All Causes in Adults With Diabetes: The Coronary Calcium Consortium
RESULTS Among 4,503 adults with diabetes (32.5% women) aged 21–93 years, 61.2% of women and 80.4% of men had CAC >0. Total, CVD, and CHD mortality rates were directly related to CAC; women had higher total and CVD death rates than men when CAC >100. Age- and risk factor–adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) per log unit CAC were higher among women versus men for total mortality (1.28 vs. 1.18) (interaction P = 0.01) and CVD mortality (1.47 vs. 1.27) (interaction P = 0.04) but were similar for CHD mortality (1.48 and 1.48). For CVD mortality, HRs with CAC scores of 101–400 and >400 were 3.67 and 6.27, respectively, for women and 1.63 and 3.48, respectively, for men (interaction P = 0.04). For total mortality, HRs were 2.56 and 4.05 for women, respectively, and 1.88 and 2.66 for men, respectively (interaction P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS CAC predicts CHD, CVD, and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes; however, greater CAC predicts CVD and total mortality more strongly in women.Sex Differences in Coronary Artery Calcium and Mortality From Coronary Heart Disease, Cardiovascular Disease, and All Causes in Adults With Diabetes: The Coronary Calcium Consortium — Diabetes Care 2020 Oct; 43(10): 2597-2606. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-0166
This article provides an overview of the clinical evidence on the poorer clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with diabetes versus patients without diabetes, including in specific patient populations, such as children, pregnant women, and racial and ethnic minorities.COVID-19 and Diabetes: A Collision and Collusion of Two Diseases — Diabetes 2020 Oct; dbi200032. https://doi.org/10.2337/dbi20-0032
In the article above the researchers reviewed nearly 90 studies.
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is defined by a single metabolite, glucose, but is increasingly recognized as a highly heterogeneous disease, including individuals with varying clinical characteristics, disease progression, drug response, and risk of complications. Identification of subtypes with differing risk profiles and disease etiologies at diagnosis could open up avenues for personalized medicine and allow clinical resources to be focused to the patients who would be most likely to develop diabetic complications, thereby both improving patient health and reducing costs for the health sector. More homogeneous populations also offer increased power in experimental, genetic, and clinical studies. Clinical parameters are easily available and reflect relevant disease pathways, including the effects of both genetic and environmental exposures. We used six clinical parameters (GAD autoantibodies, age at diabetes onset, HbA1c, BMI, and measures of insulin resistance and insulin secretion) to cluster adult-onset diabetes patients into five subtypes. These subtypes have been robustly reproduced in several populations and associated with different risks of complications, comorbidities, genetics, and response to treatment. Importantly, the group with severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD) had increased risk of retinopathy and neuropathy, whereas the severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD) group had the highest risk for diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and fatty liver, emphasizing the importance of insulin resistance for DKD and hepatosteatosis in T2D. In conclusion, we believe that subclassification using these highly relevant parameters could provide a framework for personalized medicine in diabetes.Subtypes of Type 2 Diabetes Determined From Clinical Parameters — Diabetes 2020 Oct; 69(10): 2086-2093. https://doi.org/10.2337/dbi20-0001
Not just potential for personalized medicine in the treatment of diabetes but perhaps a framework for better risk stratification and selection in life insurance.
Intakes of Folate, Vitamin B6, and Vitamin B12 in Relation to Diabetes Incidence Among American Young Adults: A 30-Year Follow-up Study
RESULTS During 30 years (mean 20.5 ± 8.9) of follow-up, 655 incident cases of diabetes occurred. Intake of folate, but not vitamin B6 or vitamin B12, was inversely associated with diabetes incidence after adjustment for potential confounders. Compared with the lowest quintile of total folate intake, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) in quintiles 2–5 were 0.85 (0.67–1.08), 0.78 (0.60–1.02), 0.82 (0.62–1.09), and 0.70 (0.51–0.97; Ptrend = 0.02). Higher folate intake was also associated with lower plasma homocysteine (Ptrend < 0.01) and insulin (Ptrend < 0.01). Among supplement users, folate intake was inversely associated with serum C-reactive protein levels (Ptrend < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS Intake of folate in young adulthood was inversely associated with diabetes incidence in midlife among Americans. The observed association may be partially explained by mechanisms related to homocysteine level, insulin sensitivity, and systemic inflammation.Intakes of Folate, Vitamin B6, and Vitamin B12 in Relation to Diabetes Incidence Among American Young Adults: A 30-Year Follow-up Study — Diabetes Care 2020 Oct; 43(10): 2426-2434. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-0828
Folate is a B vitamin that occurs naturally in foods such as green leafy vegetables, citrus fruit, and beans. So eat your greens and beans. Taking a supplement can’t hurt either. My multivitamin has plenty of folate.
Based on the results of the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS), in which metformin significantly decreased the development of diabetes in individuals with baseline fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations of 110–125 vs. 100–109 mg/dL (6.1–6.9 vs. 5.6–6.0 mmol/L) and A1C levels 6.0–6.4% (42–46 mmol/mol) vs. <6.0% and in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus, it has been suggested that metformin should be used to treat people with prediabetes. Since the association between prediabetes and cardiovascular disease is due to the associated nonglycemic risk factors in people with prediabetes, not to the slightly increased glycemia, the only reason to treat with metformin is to delay or prevent the development of diabetes. There are three reasons not to do so. First, approximately two-thirds of people with prediabetes do not develop diabetes, even after many years. Second, approximately one-third of people with prediabetes return to normal glucose regulation. Third, people who meet the glycemic criteria for prediabetes are not at risk for the microvascular complications of diabetes and thus metformin treatment will not affect this important outcome. Why put people who are not at risk for the microvascular complications of diabetes on a drug (possibly for the rest of their lives) that has no immediate advantage except to lower subdiabetes glycemia to even lower levels? Rather, individuals at the highest risk for developing diabetes—i.e., those with FPG concentrations of 110–125 mg/dL (6.1–6.9 mmol/L) or A1C levels of 6.0–6.4% (42–46 mmol/mol) or women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus—should be followed closely and metformin immediately introduced only when they are diagnosed with diabetes.Metformin Should Not Be Used to Treat Prediabetes — Diabetes Care 2020 Sep; 43(9): 1983-1987. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-2221
I have been struggling with diabulimia on and off since my diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in 2011, at age 30. I had just started a PhD and spent the first semester walking around campus with all the classic symptoms of type 1 diabetes: famished, dehydrated, constantly needing to urinate, and experiencing rapid weight loss. After my diabetes diagnosis, when I started injecting insulin, I gained the weight back—and then some. It didn’t take long to figure out that omitting insulin was not only an effective weight loss tool, compared with vomiting, it was a much less violent way to purge. Having a history of bulimia nervosa, I thought I had found the holy grail. I could eat what I wanted, not use insulin, and not gain weight.
And I thought Orthorexia Nervosa was bad.
Diabetes Independently Linked to Increased Heart Failure – Medscape – Jan 09, 2020.
Higher intake of ultraprocessed foods (for example, packaged snack foods) is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, according to a prospective study in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Over 100,000 French adults completed a series of 24-hour dietary recall questionnaires over a 2-year period. During a median follow-up of 6 years, roughly 820 participants were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
After adjustment for body-mass index, physical activity, and other confounders, participants who ate more ultraprocessed foods were at higher risk for diabetes. In particular, the risk increased by 13% with each 10% increase in the proportion of diet comprising ultraprocessed foods.
The authors note that in previous studies, ultraprocessed foods have been linked to increased risks for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mortality.
JAMA Internal Medicine article (Free abstract)
Junk food = bad.