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.

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. Simultaneous blood pressure control has been advocated for the same purpose, but findings reported from individual studies have supported varying conclusions regarding the ocular benefit of interventions on blood pressure. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this review was to summarize the existing evidence regarding the effect of interventions to control or reduce blood pressure levels among diabetics on incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy, preservation of visual acuity, adverse events, quality of life, and costs. A secondary aim was to compare classes of anti-hypertensive medications with respect to the same outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched a number of electronic databases including CENTRAL as well as ongoing trial registries. We last searched the electronic databases on 25 April 2014. We also reviewed reference lists of review articles and trial reports selected for inclusion. In addition, we contacted investigators of trials with potentially pertinent data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included in this review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which either type 1 or type 2 diabetic participants, with or without hypertension, were assigned randomly to intense versus less intense blood pressure control, to blood pressure control versus usual care or no intervention on blood pressure, or to different classes of anti-hypertensive agents versus placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts from electronic and manual searches and the full text of any document that appeared to be relevant. We assessed included trials independently for risk of bias with respect to outcomes reported in this review. We extracted data regarding trial characteristics, incidence and progression of retinopathy, visual acuity, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness at annual intervals after study entry whenever provided in published reports and other documents available from included trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs, conducted primarily in North America and Europe, that had enrolled 4157 type 1 and 9512 type 2 diabetic participants, ranging from 16 to 2130 participants in individual trials. In 10 of the 15 RCTs, one group of participants was assigned to one or more anti-hypertensive agents and the control group received placebo. In three trials, intense blood pressure control was compared to less intense blood pressure control. In the remaining two trials, blood pressure control was compared with usual care. Five of the 15 trials enrolled type 1 diabetics, and 10 trials enrolled type 2 diabetics. Six trials were sponsored entirely by pharmaceutical companies, seven trials received partial support from pharmaceutical companies, and two studies received support from government-sponsored grants and institutional support.Study designs, populations, interventions, and lengths of follow-up (range one to nine years) varied among the included trials. Overall, the quality of the evidence for individual outcomes was low to moderate. For the primary outcomes, incidence and progression of retinopathy, the quality of evidence was downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision of estimates from individual studies and differing characteristics of participants.For primary outcomes among type 1 diabetics, one of the five trials reported incidence of retinopathy and one trial reported progression of retinopathy after 4 to 5 years of treatment and follow-up; four of the five trials reported a combined outcome of incidence and progression over the same time interval. Among type 2 diabetics, 5 of the 10 trials reported incidence of diabetic retinopathy and 3 trials reported progression of retinopathy; one of the 10 trials reported a combined outcome of incidence and progression during a 4- to 5-year follow-up period. One trial in which type 2 diabetics participated had reported no primary (or secondary) outcome targeted for this review.The evidence from these trials supported a benefit of more intensive blood pressure control intervention with respect to 4- to 5-year incidence of diabetic retinopathy (estimated risk ratio (RR) 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.92) and the combined outcome of incidence and progression (estimated RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97). The available evidence provided less support for a benefit with respect to 4- to 5-year progression of diabetic retinopathy (point estimate was closer to 1 than point estimates for incidence and combined incidence and progression, and the CI overlapped 1; estimated RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05). The available evidence regarding progression to proliferative diabetic retinopathy or clinically significant macular edema or moderate to severe loss of best-corrected visual acuity did not support a benefit of intervention on blood pressure: estimated RRs and 95% CIs 0.95 (0.83 to 1.09) and 1.06 (0.85 to 1.33), respectively, after 4 to 5 years of follow-up. Findings within subgroups of trial participants (type 1 and type 2 diabetics; participants with normal blood pressure levels at baseline and those with elevated levels) were similar to overall findings.The adverse event reported most often (7 of 15 trials) was death, yielding an estimated RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.14). Hypotension was reported from three trials; the estimated RR was 2.08 (95% CI 1.68 to 2.57). Other adverse ocular events were reported from single trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension is a well-known risk factor for several chronic conditions in which lowering blood pressure has proven to be beneficial. The available evidence supports a beneficial effect of intervention to reduce blood pressure with respect to preventing diabetic retinopathy for up to 4 to 5 years. However, the lack of evidence to support such intervention to slow progression of diabetic retinopathy or to prevent other outcomes considered in this review, along with the relatively modest support for the beneficial effect on incidence, weakens the conclusion regarding an overall benefit of intervening on blood pressure solely to prevent 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.

Efficacy and safety of pioglitazone in treatment of a patient with an atypical partial lipodystrophy syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pioglitazone therapy in a patient with an atypical presentation of partial lipodystrophy. METHODS: We present a case report and review the associated literature to put this case in perspective and explain its atypical features. RESULTS: A 40-year-old woman was referred because of uncontrolled diabetes and dyslipidemia, despite receiving a total daily dose of insulin of 300 U and combination therapy with a statin and a fibrate. On examination, the patient was found to have substantial central and abdominal fat deposition in conjunction with slender arms and legs. The addition of pioglitazone to her therapeutic regimen resulted in a dramatic improvement in glycemic control and in the dyslipidemia. During approximately a 2-year period, the patient's insulin dose was decreased and was ultimately discontinued. Considerable increases in weight and in waist circumference were observed during this period. Sequencing of candidate genes known to be associated with familial partial lipodystrophy, acquired partial lipodystrophy, and generalized lipodystrophy showed no genetic abnormalities. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed the presence of significant visceral and subcutaneous abdominal fat deposition, in association with scant fat tissue in the extremities. Her weight decreased after discontinuation of the insulin therapy and institution of dietary counseling. CONCLUSION: Thiazolidinediones have been shown to be efficacious in syndromic lipodystrophies, such as familial partial lipodystrophy subtype 2. We report that these pharmaceutical agents may also help improve metabolic variables in atypical lipodystrophy syndromes with no obvious molecular basis. A pronounced weight gain might result from synergism between thiazolidinediones and insulin promoting adipogenesis, which diminished somewhat after discontinuation of insulin therapy.