Blood pressure control for diabetic retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is a common complication of diabetes and a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness. Research has established the importance of blood glucose control to prevent development and progression of the ocular complications of diabetes. Concurrent blood pressure control has been advocated for this purpose, but individual studies have reported varying conclusions regarding the effects of this intervention. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the existing evidence regarding the effect of interventions to control blood pressure levels among diabetics on incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy, preservation of visual acuity, adverse events, quality of life, and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched several electronic databases, including CENTRAL, and trial registries. We last searched the electronic databases on 3 September 2021. We also reviewed the reference lists of review articles and trial reports selected for inclusion. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which either type 1 or type 2 diabetic participants, with or without hypertension, were assigned randomly to more intense versus less intense blood pressure control; to blood pressure control versus usual care or no intervention on blood pressure (placebo); or to one class of antihypertensive medication versus another or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of records identified by the electronic and manual searches and the full-text reports of any records identified as potentially relevant. The included trials were independently assessed for risk of bias with respect to outcomes reported in this review. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East that had enrolled a total of 4620 type 1 and 22,565 type 2 diabetic participants (sample sizes from 16 to 4477 participants). In all 7 RCTs for normotensive type 1 diabetic participants, 8 of 12 RCTs with normotensive type 2 diabetic participants, and 5 of 10 RCTs with hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants, one group was assigned to one or more antihypertensive agents and the control group to placebo. In the remaining 4 RCTs for normotensive participants with type 2 diabetes and 5 RCTs for hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants, methods of intense blood pressure control were compared to usual care. Eight trials were sponsored entirely and 10 trials partially by pharmaceutical companies; nine studies received support from other sources; and two studies did not report funding source. Study designs, populations, interventions, lengths of follow-up (range less than one year to nine years), and blood pressure targets varied among the included trials. For primary review outcomes after five years of treatment and follow-up, one of the seven trials for type 1 diabetics reported incidence of retinopathy and one trial reported progression of retinopathy; one trial reported a combined outcome of incidence and progression (as defined by study authors). Among normotensive type 2 diabetics, four of 12 trials reported incidence of diabetic retinopathy and two trials reported progression of retinopathy; two trials reported combined incidence and progression. Among hypertensive type 2 diabetics, six of the 10 trials reported incidence of diabetic retinopathy and two trials reported progression of retinopathy; five of the 10 trials reported combined incidence and progression. The evidence supports an overall benefit of more intensive blood pressure intervention for five-year incidence of diabetic retinopathy (11 studies; 4940 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.92; I2 = 15%; moderate certainty evidence) and the combined outcome of incidence and progression (8 studies; 6212 participants; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89; I2 = 42%; low certainty evidence). The available evidence did not support a benefit regarding five-year progression of diabetic retinopathy (5 studies; 5144 participants; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; I2 = 57%; moderate certainty evidence), incidence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, clinically significant macular edema, or vitreous hemorrhage (9 studies; 8237 participants; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.04; I2 = 31%; low certainty evidence), or loss of 3 or more lines on a visual acuity chart with a logMAR scale (2 studies; 2326 participants; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.08; I2 = 90%; very low certainty evidence). Hypertensive type 2 diabetic participants realized more benefit from intense blood pressure control for three of the four outcomes concerning incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy. The adverse event reported most often (13 of 29 trials) was death, yielding an estimated RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.00; 13 studies; 13,979 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Hypotension was reported in two trials, with an RR of 2.04 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.55; 2 studies; 3323 participants; I2 = 37%; low certainty evidence), indicating an excess of hypotensive events among participants assigned to more intervention on blood pressure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension is a well-known risk factor for several chronic conditions for which lowering blood pressure has proven to be beneficial. The available evidence supports a modest beneficial effect of intervention to reduce blood pressure with respect to preventing diabetic retinopathy for up to five years, particularly for hypertensive type 2 diabetics. However, there was a paucity of evidence to support such intervention to slow progression of diabetic retinopathy or to affect other outcomes considered in this review among normotensive diabetics. This weakens any conclusion regarding an overall benefit of intervening on blood pressure in diabetic patients without hypertension for the sole purpose of preventing diabetic retinopathy or avoiding the need for treatment for advanced stages of diabetic retinopathy.

Acromegaly and pheochromocytoma: report of a rare coexistence.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a patient with the rare coexistence of acromegaly and pheochromocytoma. METHODS: We report a case of a 57-year-old woman, who was initially examined because of polyarthritis, she was also diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension at age 56 years. Her history, clinical findings, laboratory results, and management are summarized, and etiologic hypotheses are discussed. RESULTS: The patient had recurrent headaches and reported an increasing size of her shoes and gloves during the previous 4 years. Enlargement of her hands and feet and a bilateral temporal field defect were noted on examination. Laboratory studies revealed high levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and growth hormone (GH). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed a 3-cm sellar mass with impingement on the optic chiasm. The plasma level of growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH) was normal. She underwent transsphenoidal adenomectomy. Histologic examination confirmed a pituitary adenoma, immunoreactive for GH. Postoperatively, her headaches and arthritic pain diminished, and her levels of IGF-I and GH normalized; however, labile hypertension persisted. The urinary metanephrines and plasma catecholamines were increased. A 3-cm left adrenal mass, seen on abdominal MRI, was removed laparoscopically, after which urinary metanephrines normalized and both the diabetes and the hypertension resolved. Histopathologic analysis confirmed the diagnosis of pheochromocytoma. Immunohistochemical staining was negative for GHRH. CONCLUSION: The finding of a pheochromocytoma and acromegaly could be a fortuitous coexistence of two separate endocrine tumors; however, the probability of such an event is extremely low. A cause-and-effect relationship has been suggested because of previous reports of GHRH production by pheochromocytomas. Some investigators have also suggested that this coexistence might be a multiple endocrine neoplasia variant. Our patient had no evidence of GHRH production, nor did we document any familial autosomal dominant transmission pattern.