Follow-up of Blood-Pressure Lowering and Glucose Control in Type 2 Diabetes

Sophia Zoungas(The University of Sydney), John Chalmers(The George Institute for Global Health), Bruce Neal(The George Institute for Global Health), Laurent Billot(The George Institute for Global Health), Qiang Li(The University of Sydney), Yoichiro Hirakawa(The George Institute for Global Health), Hisatomi Arima(The George Institute for Global Health), Helen Monaghan(The George Institute for Global Health), Rohina Joshi(The George Institute for Global Health), Stephen Colagiuri, Mark E. Cooper(Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute), Paul Glasziou(Bond University), Diederick E. Grobbee(University Medical Center Utrecht), Pavel Hamet(Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal), Stephen Harrap(The Royal Melbourne Hospital), Simon Heller(Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust), Liu Lisheng, Giuseppe Mancia(University of Milan), Michel Marre(Université Paris Cité), David R. Matthews(Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism), Carl Erik Mogensen(Aarhus University Hospital), Vlado Perkovic(The George Institute for Global Health), Neil R Poulter(University of Oxford), Anthony Rodgers(The George Institute for Global Health), Bryan Williams(National Institute for Health and Care Research), Stephen MacMahon, Anushka Patel(The George Institute for Global Health), Mark Woodward(Johns Hopkins University)
New England Journal of Medicine
September 19, 2014
Cited by 619Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) factorial trial, the combination of perindopril and indapamide reduced mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes, but intensive glucose control, targeting a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 6.5%, did not. We now report results of the 6-year post-trial follow-up. METHODS: We invited surviving participants, who had previously been assigned to perindopril-indapamide or placebo and to intensive or standard glucose control (with the glucose-control comparison extending for an additional 6 months), to participate in a post-trial follow-up evaluation. The primary end points were death from any cause and major macrovascular events. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics were similar among the 11,140 patients who originally underwent randomization and the 8494 patients who participated in the post-trial follow-up for a median of 5.9 years (blood-pressure-lowering comparison) or 5.4 years (glucose-control comparison). Between-group differences in blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin levels during the trial were no longer evident by the first post-trial visit. The reductions in the risk of death from any cause and of death from cardiovascular causes that had been observed in the group receiving active blood-pressure-lowering treatment during the trial were attenuated but significant at the end of the post-trial follow-up; the hazard ratios were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.99; P=0.03) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99; P=0.04), respectively. No differences were observed during follow-up in the risk of death from any cause or major macrovascular events between the intensive-glucose-control group and the standard-glucose-control group; the hazard ratios were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.08) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.08), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits with respect to mortality that had been observed among patients originally assigned to blood-pressure-lowering therapy were attenuated but still evident at the end of follow-up. There was no evidence that intensive glucose control during the trial led to long-term benefits with respect to mortality or macrovascular events. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; ADVANCE-ON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00949286.).


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis