Alterations in pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators are involved in microvascular dysfunction in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Evidence has shown that women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a greater risk of cardiovascular complications compared with men, but this sex difference is not clearly understood. This study assessed the microvascular function and circulatory biomarkers in postmenopausal women (PMW) with T2DM compared with diabetic men and their non-diabetic counterparts. Sixty participants were divided into nondiabetic PMW, PMW with T2DM, non-diabetic men, and diabetic men. Microvascular function was assessed using non-invasive equipment (EndoPAT®) and reported as reactive hyperemia index (RHI). Anthropometric and cardiovascular parameters were also measured. Two-way ANOVA was performed using sex (women or men) and T2DM (non-diabetic and diabetic) as the two factors. RHI impairment (1.97±0.14) was detected in diabetic PMW compared with women without T2DM (2.5±0.13) accompanied by lower adiponectin levels (T2DM: 9.3±1.2 and CTL: 13.8±1.8 ug/mL, P<0.05). An increase in the Nε-carboxymethyllysine (CML), nitrate/nitrite, and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were observed in diabetic PMW compared to the other groups. Although a poor glycemia control was seen in diabetic men, neither RHI nor circulatory biomarkers were affected by T2DM. Multiple linear regression stratified by sex and T2DM identified some variables with RHI only in PMW with T2DM: HbA1c (P=0.003), body mass index (P=0.029), CML (P=0.032), and CRP (P=0.006). Diabetic PMW were more susceptible to the deleterious effects of hyperglycemia than men, showing microvascular dysfunction with high levels of pro-inflammatory mediators (CML and CRP) and a lower adiponectin concentration.

Alterations in pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators are involved in microvascular dysfunction in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Evidence has shown that women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a greater risk of cardiovascular complications compared with men, but this sex difference is not clearly understood. This study assessed the microvascular function and circulatory biomarkers in postmenopausal women (PMW) with T2DM compared with diabetic men and their non-diabetic counterparts. Sixty participants were divided into nondiabetic PMW, PMW with T2DM, non-diabetic men, and diabetic men. Microvascular function was assessed using non-invasive equipment (EndoPAT®) and reported as reactive hyperemia index (RHI). Anthropometric and cardiovascular parameters were also measured. Two-way ANOVA was performed using sex (women or men) and T2DM (non-diabetic and diabetic) as the two factors. RHI impairment (1.97±0.14) was detected in diabetic PMW compared with women without T2DM (2.5±0.13) accompanied by lower adiponectin levels (T2DM: 9.3±1.2 and CTL: 13.8±1.8 ug/mL, P<0.05). An increase in the Nε-carboxymethyllysine (CML), nitrate/nitrite, and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were observed in diabetic PMW compared to the other groups. Although a poor glycemia control was seen in diabetic men, neither RHI nor circulatory biomarkers were affected by T2DM. Multiple linear regression stratified by sex and T2DM identified some variables with RHI only in PMW with T2DM: HbA1c (P=0.003), body mass index (P=0.029), CML (P=0.032), and CRP (P=0.006). Diabetic PMW were more susceptible to the deleterious effects of hyperglycemia than men, showing microvascular dysfunction with high levels of pro-inflammatory mediators (CML and CRP) and a lower adiponectin concentration.

Controlled Versus Uncontrolled Resistant Hypertension: Are They in the Same Bag?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Resistant hypertension (RHTN) is a condition in which besides the antihypertensive therapy using at least three different drugs (including a diuretics), brachial blood pressure does not reach the target (e.g., 140/90 mmHg). RECENT FINDINGS: Despite the diversity of clinical presentations, we divide RHTN in two major groups according to blood pressure and number of drugs taken: controlled (C-RHTN) and uncontrolled (UC-RHTN) resistant hypertension, with refractory hypertension (RfHTN) included in the latter subgroup. Both C-RHTN and UC-RHTN are heterogenic and complex syndromes. To better approach this matter, the some pathophysiological mechanisms (increased volemia, hyperactivity, plasma cortisol, adipocitokines, and other pro-inflammatory factors), have a pivotal clinical role. Some features (African ethnic, obesity, age > 60, LV hypertrophy, and vascular stiffness) increase the risk of refractoriness as well as worst prognosis. Based on increased target organ damage, cardiovascular risk and events will be addressed in this review. Our conclusion is that although both C-RHTN and UC-RHTN are extreme phenotypes of hard-to-control BP, some mechanisms of the disease and clinical expressions are distinct. According to these differences, "UC-RHTN and C-RHTN are not in the same bag."