Explore the vast range of titles available.

Aims: Recent trials provide conflicting results on the association between glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and diabetic retinopathy (DR). The aim of the AngioSafe type 2 diabetes (T2D) study was to determine the role of GLP-1RA in angiogenesis using clinical and preclinical models.Methods: We performed two studies in humans. In study 1, we investigated the effect of GLP-1RA exposure from T2D diagnosis on the severity of DR, as diagnosed with retinal imaging (fundus photography). In study 2, a randomized 4-week trial, we assessed the effect of liraglutide on circulating hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs), and angio-miRNAs. We then studied the experimental effect of Exendin-4, on key steps of angiogenesis: in vitro on human endothelial cell proliferation, survival and three-dimensional vascular morphogenesis; and in vivo on ischemia-induced neovascularization of the retina in mice.Results: In the cohort of 3154 T2D patients, 10% displayed severe DR. In multivariate analysis, sex, disease duration, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), micro- and macroangiopathy, insulin therapy and hypertension remained strongly associated with severe DR, while no association was found with GLP-1RA exposure (o 1.139 [0.800-1.622], P = .47). We further showed no effect of liraglutide on HPCs, and angio-miRNAs. In vitro, we demonstrated that exendin-4 had no effect on proliferation and survival of human endothelial cells, no effect on total length and number of capillaries. Finally, in vivo, we showed that exendin-4 did not exert any negative effect on retinal neovascularization.Conclusions: The AngioSafe T2D studies provide experimental and clinical data confirming no effect of GLP-1RA on angiogenesis and no association between GLP-1 exposure and severe DR.

Laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy is often associated with visual field reduction and other ocular side-effects. Our aim was to assess whether long-term lipid-lowering therapy with fenofibrate could reduce the progression of retinopathy and the need for laser treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study was a multinational randomised trial of 9795 patients aged 50–75 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive fenofibrate 200 mg/day (n=4895) or matching placebo (n=4900). At each clinic visit, information concerning laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy—a prespecified tertiary endpoint of the main study—was gathered. Adjudication by ophthalmologists masked to treatment allocation defined instances of laser treatment for macular oedema, proliferative retinopathy, or other eye conditions. In a substudy of 1012 patients, standardised retinal photography was done and photographs graded with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) criteria to determine the cumulative incidence of diabetic retinopathy and its component lesions. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64783481. Laser treatment was needed more frequently in participants with poorer glycaemic or blood pressure control than in those with good control of these factors, and in those with a greater burden of clinical microvascular disease, but the need for such treatment was not affected by plasma lipid concentrations. The requirement for first laser treatment for all retinopathy was significantly lower in the fenofibrate group than in the placebo group (164 [3·4%] patients on fenofibrate vs 238 [4·9%] on placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·56–0·84; p=0·0002; absolute risk reduction 1·5% [0·7–2·3]). In the ophthalmology substudy, the primary endpoint of 2-step progression of retinopathy grade did not differ significantly between the two groups overall (46 [9·6%] patients on fenofibrate vs 57 [12·3%] on placebo; p=0·19) or in the subset of patients without pre-existing retinopathy (43 [11·4%] vs 43 [11·7%]; p=0·87). By contrast, in patients with pre-existing retinopathy, significantly fewer patients on fenofibrate had a 2-step progression than did those on placebo (three [3·1%] patients vs 14 [14·6%]; p=0·004). An exploratory composite endpoint of 2-step progression of retinopathy grade, macular oedema, or laser treatments was significantly lower in the fenofibrate group than in the placebo group (HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·47–0·94; p=0·022). Treatment with fenofibrate in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus reduces the need for laser treatment for diabetic retinopathy, although the mechanism of this effect does not seem to be related to plasma concentrations of lipids.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were evaluated for progression of diabetic retinopathy after being randomly assigned to receive several medical therapies. At 4 years, the rate of progression was significantly lower with intensive glycemia therapy than with standard glycemia therapy and significantly lower with simvastatin plus fenofibrate than with simvastatin plus placebo. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were evaluated for progression of diabetic retinopathy after being randomly assigned to receive several medical therapies. At 4 years, the rate of progression was significantly lower with intensive glycemia therapy than with standard glycemia therapy and significantly lower with simvastatin plus fenofibrate than with simvastatin plus placebo. Diabetic retinopathy, an important microvascular complication of diabetes, is a leading cause of blindness in the United States. 1 Randomized, controlled clinical trials in cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes have shown the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic control 2 – 5 and intensive treatment of elevated blood pressure 6 on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Elevated serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels have been implicated, in observational studies and small trials, as additional risk factors for the development of diabetic retinopathy and visual loss. 7 – 14 The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study (Current Controlled . . .

Results of previous studies suggest that renin-angiotensin system blockers might reduce the burden of diabetic retinopathy. We therefore designed the DIabetic REtinopathy Candesartan Trials (DIRECT) Programme to assess whether candesartan could reduce the incidence and progression of retinopathy in type 1 diabetes. Two randomised, double-blind, parallel-design, placebo-controlled trials were done in 309 centres worldwide. Participants with normotensive, normoalbuminuric type 1 diabetes without retinopathy were recruited to the DIRECT-Prevent 1 trial and those with existing retinopathy were recruited to DIRECT-Protect 1, and were assigned to candesartan 16 mg once a day or matching placebo. After 1 month, the dose was doubled to 32 mg. Investigators and participants were unaware of the treatment allocation status. The primary endpoints were incidence and progression of retinopathy and were defined as at least a two-step and at least a three-step increase on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale, respectively. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00252733 for DIRECT-Prevent 1 and NCT00252720 for DIRECT-Protect 1. 1421 participants (aged 18–50 years) were randomly assigned to candesartan (n=711) or to placebo (n=710) in DIRECT-Prevent 1, and 1905 (aged 18–55 years) to candesartan (n=951) or to placebo (n=954) in DIRECT-Protect 1. Incidence of retinopathy was seen in 178 (25%) participants in the candesartan group versus 217 (31%) in the placebo group. Progression of retinopathy occurred in 127 (13%) participants in the candesartan group versus 124 (13%) in the placebo group. Hazard ratio (HR for candesartan vs placebo) was 0·82 (95% CI 0·67–1·00, p=0·0508) for incidence of retinopathy and 1·02 (0·80–1·31, p=0·85) for progression of retinopathy. The post-hoc outcome of at least a three-step increase for incidence yielded an HR of 0·65 (0·48–0·87, p=0·0034), which was attenuated but still significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics (0·71, 0·53–0·95, p=0·046). Final ETDRS level was more likely to have improved with candesartan treatment in both DIRECT-Prevent 1 (odds 1·16, 95% CI 1·05–1·30, p=0·0048) and DIRECT-Protect 1 (1·12, 95% CI 1·01–1·25, p=0·0264). Adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups. Although candesartan reduces the incidence of retinopathy, we did not see a beneficial effect on retinopathy progression. AstraZeneca and Takeda.

Diabetic retinopathy remains a leading cause of visual loss in people of working age. We examined whether candesartan treatment could slow the progression and, secondly, induce regression of retinopathy in people with type 2 diabetes. We did a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial in 309 centres worldwide. We recruited normoalbuminuric, normotensive, or treated hypertensive people with type 2 diabetes with mild to moderately severe retinopathy and assigned them to candesartan 16 mg once a day or placebo. After a month, the dose was doubled to 32 mg once per day. Investigators and patients were unaware of the treatment allocation status. Progression of retinopathy was the primary endpoint, and regression was a secondary endpoint. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00252694. 1905 participants (aged 37–75 years) were randomised to candesartan (n=951) or placebo (n=954). 161 (17%) patients in the candesartan group and 182 (19%) in the placebo group had progression of retinopathy by three steps or more on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale. The risk of progression of retinopathy was non-significantly reduced by 13% in patients on candesartan compared with those on placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·70–1·08, p=0·20). Regression on active treatment was increased by 34% (1·34, 1·08–1·68, p=0·009). HRs were not attenuated by adjustment for baseline risk factors or changes in blood pressure during the trial. An overall change towards less severe retinopathy by the end of the trial was observed in the candesartan group (odds 1·17, 95% CI 1·05–1·30, p=0·003). Adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups. Treatment with candesartan in type 2 diabetic patients with mild to moderate retinopathy might induce improvement of retinopathy. AstraZeneca and Takeda.

The aim of this study was to examine differences between adolescents and adults in persistence of the benefits of intensive therapy 10 years after completion of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). During the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study, progression of retinopathy from DCCT closeout to EDIC year 10 was evaluated in 1,055 adults and 156 adolescents. During 10 years of follow-up, HbA(1c) (A1C) was similar between original intensive (INT) and conventional (CON) groups and between former adolescents and adults. At EDIC year 10, adults in the former INT group continued to show slower progression of diabetic retinopathy than those in the CON group (adjusted hazard reduction 56%, P < 0.0001), whereas in adolescents this beneficial effect had disappeared (32%, P = 0.13). Seventy-nine percent of observed differences in the prolonged treatment effect between adults and adolescents at year 10 were explained by differences in mean A1C during DCCT between adolescents and adults (8.9 vs. 8.1%), particularly between INT adolescents and adults (8.1 vs. 7.2%). Prior glycemic control during DCCT is vital for the persistence of the beneficial effects of INT therapy 10 years later. Lowering A1C to as close to normal as safely possible without severe hypoglycemia and starting as early as possible should be attempted for all subjects with type 1 diabetes. These results underscore the importance of maintaining A1C at target values for as long as possible because the benefits of former INT treatment wane over time if A1C levels rise.

Background Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is known to be associated with high cardiovascular risk, but the individual impact of PAD presentations on risk of macrovascular and microvascular events has not been reliably compared in patients with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to evaluate the impact of major PAD, and its different presentations, on the 10-year risk of death, major macrovascular events, and major clinical microvascular events in these patients. Methods Participants in the action in diabetes and vascular disease: PreterAx and DiamicroN modified-release controlled evaluation (ADVANCE) trial and the ADVANCE-ON post-trial study were followed for a median of 5.0 (in-trial), 5.4 (post-trial), and 9.9 (overall) years. Major PAD at baseline was subdivided into lower-extremity chronic ulceration or amputation secondary to vascular disease and history of peripheral revascularization by angioplasty or surgery. Results Among 11,140 participants, 516 (4.6 %) had major PAD at baseline: 300 (2.7 %) had lower-extremity ulceration or amputation alone, 190 (1.7 %) had peripheral revascularization alone, and 26 (0.2 %) had both presentations. All-cause mortality, major macrovascular events, and major clinical microvascular events occurred in 2265 (20.3 %), 2166 (19.4 %), and 807 (7.2 %) participants, respectively. Compared to those without PAD, patients with major PAD had increased rates of all-cause mortality (HR 1.35, 95 % CI 1.15–1.60, p = 0.0004), and major macrovascular events (1.47 [1.23–1.75], p < 0.0001), after multiple adjustments for region of origin, cardiovascular risk factors and treatments, peripheral neuropathy markers, and randomized treatments. We have also observed a trend toward an association of baseline PAD with risk of major clinical microvascular events [1.31 (0.96–1.78), p = 0.09]. These associations were comparable for patients with a lower-extremity ulceration or amputation and for those with a history of peripheral revascularization. Furthermore, the risk of retinal photocoagulation or blindness, but not renal events, increased in patients with lower-extremity ulceration or amputation [1.53 (1.01–2.30), p = 0.04]. Conclusions Lower-extremity ulceration or amputation, and peripheral revascularization both increased the risks of death and cardiovascular events, but only lower-extremity ulceration or amputation increased the risk of severe retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Screening for major PAD and its management remain crucial for cardiovascular prevention in patients with type 2 diabetes (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00949286).

To understand the relationship of obesity and 27 circulating inflammatory biomarkers to the prevalence of non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) in youth with type 2 diabetes. Youth with type 2 diabetes who participated in the TODAY (Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth) study were followed for 2–6.5 years. Digital fundus photographs were obtained in the last year of the study. Blood samples during the study were processed for inflammatory biomarkers, and these were correlated with obesity tertiles and presence of retinopathy. Higher BMI was associated with an increase in circulating levels of metabolic biomarkers including high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), fibrinogen, LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) and Apolipoprotein B (ApoB), tumor necrosis factor receptors 1 and 2 (TNFR-1 and -2), interleukin 6 (IL-6), E-selectin, and homocysteine, as well as a decrease in the metabolic risk markers HDL-cholesterol (HDLC), and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 1 (IGFBP-1). Although NPDR risk decreased with increasing obesity, it was not associated with any of the measured biomarkers. Circulating levels of measured biomarkers did not elucidate the “obesity paradox” of decreased NPDR in the most obese participants in the TODAY study. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.govNCT00081328. •Decreased risk of retinopathy in the most obese type 2 diabetics, termed the “obesity paradox”, has unknown mechanism.•Examined 27 circulating biomarkers in youth with T2D and identified no associations with retinopathy., but rather with BMI.•Understanding mechanisms of retinal “obesity paradox” in youth requires studies of retinal inflammation and potential obesity mitigation.

Aims/hypothesis The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of blood pressure lowering and intensive glucose control on the incidence and progression of retinopathy in type 2 diabetic patients. Methods The Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) Retinal Measurements study, a substudy of ADVANCE, is a randomised (using a central, computer-based procedure) controlled 2 x 2 factorial trial comprising a double-blind comparison of blood pressure lowering with perindopril-indapamide vs placebo, and an open comparison of standard vs intensive glucose control targeting a HbA₁c of <= 6.5% in 1,602 diabetic patients from ADVANCE centres with access to retinal cameras conducted from 2001 to 2008. At baseline and the final visit, seven-field stereoscopic retinal photographs were taken and graded by blinded readers (gradeable baseline and final photographs from 1,241 patients). Progression of >=2 steps in the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study classification (using the eye with worst grading) was the primary outcome. Results Retinopathy progressed in 59 (4.8%) patients and developed in 128 (10.3%) patients over 4.1 years. Fewer patients on blood pressure-lowering treatment (n = 623) experienced incidence or progression of retinopathy compared with patients on placebo (n = 618), but the difference was not significant (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.57-1.06; p = 0.12). Blood pressure-lowering treatment reduced the occurrence of macular oedema (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.88; p = 0.016) and arteriovenous nicking compared with placebo (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.38-0.94; p = 0.025). Compared with standard glucose control (n = 611), intensive glucose control (n = 630) did not reduce (p = 0.27) the incidence and progression of retinopathy (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.61-1.15). Lower, borderline significant risks of microaneurysms, hard exudates and macular oedema were observed with intensive glucose control, adjusted for baseline retinal haemorrhages. These effects of the two treatments were independent and additive. Adverse events in the ADVANCE study are reported elsewhere. Conclusions/interpretation Blood pressure lowering or intensive glucose control did not significantly reduce the incidence and progression of retinopathy, although consistent trends towards a benefit were observed, with significant reductions in some lesions observed with both interventions. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID no. NCT00145925. Funding: Grants from Servier and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia

Aims/hypothesis Fractal analysis of the retinal vasculature provides a global measure of the complexity and density of retinal vessels summarised as a single variable: the fractal dimension. We investigated fractal dimensions as long-term predictors of microvasculopathy in type 1 diabetes. Methods We included 180 patients with type 1 diabetes in a 16 year follow-up study. In baseline retinal photographs (from 1995), all vessels in a zone 0.5–2.0 disc diameters from the disc margin were traced using Singapore Institute Vessel Assessment-Fractal image analysis software. Artefacts were removed by a certified grader, and fractal dimensions were calculated using the box-counting method. At follow-up (in 2011), diabetic neuropathy, nephropathy and proliferative retinopathy were assessed and related to baseline fractal dimensions in multiple regressions adjusted for sex and baseline age, diabetes duration, HbA 1c , BP, BMI, vibration perception threshold, albuminuria, retinopathy and vessel diameters. Results Mean baseline age and diabetes duration were 21.0 and 13.4 years, respectively, and of patients 50.0% were males. The mean fractal dimension was 1.3817. The 16 year incidences of neuropathy, nephropathy and proliferative retinopathy were 10.8%, 8.0% and 27.9%, respectively. Multiple regression analyses showed a lower fractal dimension to significantly predict incident neuropathy (OR 1.17 per 0.01 fractal dimension decrease [95% CI 1.01, 1.36]), nephropathy (OR 1.40 per 0.01 fractal dimension decrease [95% CI 1.10, 1.79]) and proliferative retinopathy (OR 1.22 per 0.01 fractal dimension decrease [95% CI 1.09, 1.37]). Conclusions/interpretation The retinal vascular fractal dimension is a shared biomarker of diabetic microvasculopathy, thus indicating a possible common pathogenic pathway. Retinal fractal analysis therefore is a potential tool for risk stratification in type 1 diabetes.