Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0011849 (diabetes)
 277,896 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

The most important factor that prevents the progression of renal damage in diabetes mellitus, beside the improvement of blood glucose control, is tight BP control. The tenet of tight BP control may be defined as the lowest BP level one can accomplish using antihypertensive therapy that is at the same time compatible with the absence of untoward side effects. In fact, both the Framingham Heart Study in nondiabetic normal subjects and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study in type 2 diabetic patients showed that systolic values as low as 108 to 111 mmHg and diastolic values as low as 70 to 71 mmHg are significantly associated with decreased cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. However, 45 to 50% of the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension have systolic BP levels above 140 mmHg during antihypertensive therapy, particularly when using monotherapy. Thus the issue regarding the choice of which drugs one should use to treat hypertension became critical from a clinical point of view. Pharmaceutical compounds, which inhibit the renin-angiotensin system, have become the first-choice treatment in patients with diabetes mellitus and incipient and advanced renal complications. The present brief review analyzes the effects of calcium channel blockers (CCB) on cardiovascular and renal complications in diabetes mellitus. The review discussed those studies that directly and blindly compared CCB with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and with angiotensin II AT(1) receptor blockers (ARB). Furthermore, size of the population recruited in each trial was used as a criterion of priority in the selection of the reports from the available literature. From the point of view of cardiovascular complications, the results of these studies showed a slightly better benefit of CCB on stroke, whereas ACE inhibitors better prevented the occurrence of myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure. On the other hand, recent observations demonstrated that also ACE inhibitors and ARB are effective in the primary and secondary prevention of stroke, although these studies did not directly compare these compounds with CCB. With regard to the outcome of renal complications, both ARB and ACE inhibitors more effectively prevented the progression of renal damage among the patients with overt nephropathy than CCB. On the contrary, both CCB and ACE inhibitors were equally effective on blunting the decay of GFR in diabetic patients who do not have overt proteinuria. However, ACE inhibitors and ARB more markedly decreased the rate of albumin excretion rate in the range of both microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria. Recent advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis of abnormalities of albumin excretion rate and of atherosclerosis are also discussed. Both mechanical stress, mainly secondary to systolic hypertension, and elevated circulating and tissue levels of angiotensin II, partially independent from each other, cause excessive generation of superoxide compounds. This chain reaction of events in turn leads to disorders of structural components of glomerular filter and to damage of the vascular wall. Systolic BP control (<130 mmHg) is not adequately accomplished in the majority of the patients treated only with ACE inhibitors and ARB, even in association with diuretics. Poor BP control may lead to excessive systemic mechanical stress at the vascular level despite satisfactory inhibition of angiotensin II effects. In conclusion, one can suggest that CCB are useful and often indispensable pharmaceutical compounds, beside ACE inhibitors and ARB, to accomplish tight BP control (<130/85 mmHg), a target that is unlikely to be successfully maintained in the overall population of type 2 diabetic patients only by ACE inhibitors or ARB, as monotherapy. However, ACE inhibitors and ARB might be considered first-choice drugs in the treatment of hypertension in diabetes mellitus, mainly because of a better renoprotection.
 ...
PMID:Cardiovascular and renal protection in type 2 diabetes mellitus: the role of calcium channel blockers. 1246 17

Cholesterol crystal embolism (CCE) is caused by the shedding of cholesterol crystals into the bloodstream, and it has been recently recognized as a serious complication after vascular procedures. Our case of CCE, which was diagnosed by skin and renal biopsies, occurred in a patient with hypertension and diabetes mellitus, 3 months after coronary angiography, with the development of renal failure and blue toes. After low-density lipoprotein apheresis (LDL-A), the skin lesions, including livedo reticularis and pain from the acrocyanotic toes, dramatically improved, with partial recovery of renal function. Following the administration of low-dose corticosteroid and candesartan--an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist (ARB)--the eosinophilia disappeared and renal function improved gradually with a decrease in urinary protein excretion. Therefore, a combination therapy of LDL-A, low-dose corticosteroid, and an ARB is a possible treatment for CCE, although the possibility of spontaneous recovery of renal function cannot be eliminated for this patient.
 ...
PMID:Acute renal failure due to cholesterol crystal embolism treated with LDL apheresis followed by corticosteroid and candesartan. 1458 47

Hypertension is often accompanied by type 2 diabetes mellitus. Recently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) published guidelines on the treatment of hypertension in adult patients with diabetes mellitus. However, the views of general physicians on how to control blood pressure (BP) in diabetic patients and the impact of the ADA guidelines in Japan are still not known. We conducted an internet survey in May 2002: Questionnaires were e-mailed to a total of 3,616 medical doctors, of whom 441 (12.2%) properly responded. About half of the respondents (48.3%) had already read the ADA guidelines. Before being given an outline of the guidelines, the respondents' average BP level for starting medication was 152/94 mmHg, and the BP goal 133/83 mmHg; after reading the outline, these values were 149/92 and 132/82 mmHg, respectively. The goal BP decreased more after reading the guidelines in doctors who had not previously read the ADA guidelines than in those who had already read. After being given an outline of the ADA guidelines, 40.3% of respondents reported that they would select, as a first-line agent, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (ARB), 35.6% an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), and 18.6% a calcium channel blocker (CCB); as a second-line medication, 39.7% of the respondents would select a CCB. Seventy percent of doctors reported having at least one patient receiving CCB monotherapy; after reading the guidelines, 41.5% of these doctors said they would continue CCB monotherapy, 36.6% said they would add an ACEI or ARB, and 29.7% planned to change to an ACEI or ARB. In conclusion, our data suggest the impact of the ADA guidelines on the target BP and the first choice of antihypertensive medication in diabetic patients. ARBs and ACEIs became first-line medications, and CCBs became second-line medications to achieve the BP goal and prevent organ damage.
 ...
PMID:Trends in blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus in Japan. 1462 Sep 27

The frequency of diabetes and hypertension is increasing worldwide. Diabetes mellitus doubles the risk of cardiovascular diseases, even in hypertensive patients who are already at high risk because of their high blood pressure. Combination of 2 or more drugs is usually needed to achieve the target BP goal of less than 130/85 mmHg. Thiazide diuretic, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitor, ARBs and Ca blockers are beneficial in reducing cardiovascular events. However, the ACE inhibitors- or ARB-based treatments favorably affect the progression of diabetic nephrology and reduce albuminuria.
 ...
PMID:[Treatment for hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus]. 1473 48

Even well-conducted randomized controlled trials can only reduce uncertainty, not eliminate it. The trials presented in this article all have gaps, and like many studies, some raise more questions than answers. A summary of the current trials, however, can be presented as follows. For patients with essential hypertension who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, the use of diuretic therapy (excluding simultaneous use of ACE or CCB) resulted in outcomes at least equivalent to the use of either ACE or CCB without diuretics. Naturally, the dilemma for clinicians is that these drugs are most often used in combination with thiazide diuretics, as indicated by the RENAAL trial where 80% of ARB were used with diuretics in patients with type II diabetes and known nephropathy. The increased risk of heart failure observed with ACE and CCB in that trial may be relevant only to patients in whom diuretics were not also used. The study does raise important awareness, however, that ACE or CCB use without diuretic therapy is no better than diuretic therapy, and may be associated with higher risk of certain outcomes. A substantial number of patients with essential hypertension might achieve adequate blood pressure control with diuretic monotherapy. If so, that certainly has important implications for the cost of medical care in this country. For African Americans with essential hypertension, ACE may have advantages as a component of therapy in comparison with CCBs or beta-blockers, although diuretics should probably be the cornerstone of therapy for them and supported by the Seventh Joint National Committee. For patients with proteinuric renal disease, whether associated with diabetes or hypertension, it should be considered inappropriate to use DHP CCB as monotherapy in any setting, whether as part of a clinical trial or in clinical practice. These drugs should not be considered as ethical placebo arms in trials, most especially in diabetic nephropathy, nor should they be used without an ACE or ARB in patients with proteinuric renal disease in the absence of documented contraindications or intolerance to ACE, ARB, or non-DHP CCB (which are now considered second-line agents for proteinuric renal disease, and are acceptable placebo or comparison arms in clinical trials). For patients with type I diabetes, ACE remain the cornerstone of therapy. Because of recent RENAAL and IDNT trial results, the greatest benefit for slowing progression of renal disease in type II diabetic nephropathy now belongs to ARBs. In contrast, however, the HOPE trial showed that ACE, specifically ramipril, had the greatest evidence for prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with renal insufficiency, regardless of diabetic status. Cardiovascular outcomes were secondary end points in the RENAAL and IDNT trials, and with the exception of heart failure for losartan, no benefits on cardiovascular outcomes were statistically significant. Progression of renal disease has only been studied in a relatively small cohort of Israeli patients comparing enalapril with nifedipine. These gaps lead to a classic dilemma in medical decision-making. Because evidence has shown that patients with elevated serum creatinine (greater than or equal to 1.4 mg/dL) are just as likely to die from cardiovascular disease as they are to reach end-stage renal disease, which outcome should be the focus for clinicians, or for researchers? Using a strictly evidence-based approach, this question can only be answered by yet another large, long, randomized, controlled trial. Given the similarity of actions between the ARB and ACE, it is likely there is considerable overlap of both benefits and side-effects between the two, although ARB may have a lower incidence of cough and hyperkalemia. The decision of which antihypertensive agents to use will have to be tailored carefully to the needs of the patient and careful consideration of both medical and economic factors. Regardless of the choice between an ACE or ARB, however, post hoc analysis of clinical trials [21,47] and observational data clearly indicate that patients with chronic kidney disease, even if considered mild (ie, serum creatinine greater than or equal to 1.4 mg/dL) are at significantly greater risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared with those with better kidney function. As stated in a recent review by the authors of the HOPE trial [50], "the frequent practice of withholding ACE [or ARB] in patients with mild renal insufficiency is unwarranted," because not only are these patients precisely those who might benefit most from their use, but safety and tolerability are generally excellent. Based on the results of the AASK trial, the authors add the same for the use of ACE inhibitors in African Americans.
 ...
PMID:What have we learned from the current trials? 1487 Oct 59

Statins have anti-inflammatory effects, modify endothelial function and improve peripheral insulin resistance. We hypothesized that statins influence the development of new-onset diabetes mellitus in renal transplant recipients. The records of all previously non-diabetic adults who received an allograft in Toronto between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2001 were reviewed with follow-up through December 31, 2002. All patients receiving cyclosporine or tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and prednisone were included. New-onset diabetes was diagnosed by the Canadian Diabetic Association criteria: fasting plasma glucose > or =7.0 mmol/L or 2-h postprandial glucose > or =11.1 mmol/L on more than two occasions. Statin use prior to diabetes development was recorded along with other variables. Cox proportional hazards models analyzing statin use as a time-dependent covariate were performed. Three hundred fourteen recipients met study criteria, of whom 129 received statins. New-onset diabetes incidence was 16% (n = 49). Statins (p = 0.0004, HR 0.238[0.109-0.524]) and ACE inhibitors/ARB (p = 0.01, HR 0.309[0.127-0.750]) were associated with decreased risk. Prednisone dose (p = 0.0001, HR 1.007[1.003-1.010] per 1 mg/d at 3 months), weight at transplant (p = 0.02, HR 1.022[1.003-1.042] per 1 kg), black ethnicity (p = 0.02, HR 1.230[1.023-1.480]) and age > or =45 years (p = 0.01, HR 2.226[1.162-4.261]) were associated with increased diabetes. Statin use is associated with reduced new-onset diabetes development after renal transplantation.
 ...
PMID:Reduced incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus after renal transplantation with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme a reductase inhibitors (statins). 1547 92

We discuss combination therapy with angiotensin receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers; ARBs) and thiazide diuretics in light of the independent actions of both types of agents, and the adverse effects of both agents independently and in the context of the physiologic synergy achieved in using these agents together. ARBs counteract many of the adverse events associated with the use of thiazide diuretics and have been shown to reduce the occurrence of new-onset diabetes mellitus. We also review outcome trials in patients with hypertension (such as LIFE [Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension], VALUE [Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation], and SCOPE [Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly]), in which losartan, valsartan, and candesartan cilexetil were used in combination with hydrochlorothiazide. Fixed combination ARB/hydrochlorothiazide agents make sense as initial therapy for patients in whom BP is >20/10 mm Hg above goal.
 ...
PMID:Fixed-dose combinations in the management of hypertension: defining the place of angiotensin receptor antagonists and hydrochlorothiazide. 1563 34

Large, placebo-controlled RCTs that involve only diabetic patients who have hypertension have not been performed. Subgroup analyses of hyper-tension control from several recent RCTs un-equivocally demonstrated greater benefit in diabetic populations (see Table 3) with ACE inhibitors, TDs, and CCBs. Treatment with fBs(atenolol) also was beneficial in diabetic patients who had hypertension in the actively-controlled UKPDS. The results of three RCTs support intensive BP control in diabetic patients (see Table 4). In these trials, diabetic patients gained more benefit than nondiabetic patients. Such an effect is consistent with the fact that diabetics are at higher risk for CV events. Although there are limited data from RCTs with head-to-head comparison of newer agents (eg,ACE inhibitors, ARBs, CCBs) to show that these drugs are better than diuretics and betaBs in reducing CV events by treating hypertension in the diabetic population, the available data support ACE inhibitors (and ARBs if ACE inhibitors are not tolerated) as an initial drug of choice in diabetic,hypertensive patients (see Table 5). Most diabetic patients require three or four drugs to control their BP to target range; as such, it is not necessary to justify the choice of any single class of drug. Tight BP control is cost-effective and is more rewarding than hyperglycemic control in diabetic,hypertensive patients. The optimal goal in diabetics should be to achieve BP that is less than 130/80 mm Hg. Appropriate action should be taken if BP is greater than 140/85 mm Hg. In subjects who have diabetes and renal insufficiency,the BP should be decreased to less than 125/75 mm Hg to delay the progression of renal failure. Limited data suggest that an ACE inhibitor or an ARB is the agent of choice, especially in patients who have proteinuria or renal insufficiency. betaBs can be the first-line agent in diabetics who have CAD. TDs and CCBs are the second line drugs.AAAs should be avoided. Most hypertensive patients require more than one agent to adequately control their BP. There is no evidence to support one combination regimen over the others, nevertheless, the combination of an ACE inhibitor with a TD or a fPB may be more beneficial and cost effective than other combinations in the diabetic population. Large outcome studies that compare different combination therapies in hypertensive,diabetic patients are needed.
 ...
PMID:Diabetes and hypertension, the deadly duet: importance, therapeutic strategy, and selection of drug therapy. 1569 43

Vascular protection is key to reducing the morbidity associated with diabetes. Angiotensin II is known to exert a variety of deleterious effects on the vasculature, and this is likely to be a major explanation of the protective benefits observed with blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). Intriguingly, RAAS blockade also appears to reduce the onset of new diabetes, which points to a fundamental effect on metabolism. Recent developments have thrown new light onto the mechanism of these effects. The importance of unopposed stimulation of the angiotensin II type 2 (AT(2)) receptor in vascular protection is recognised, and recent studies have revealed that some angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor blockers (ARBs) show partial peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma (PPARgamma) agonistic activity in vitro, an effect that is at least partly due to direct interaction with PPARgamma itself. There is a clear order of potency among the ARBs, with telmisartan the most potent and the only ARB to show an effect at physiologically achievable plasma concentrations. Adiponectin, an adipokine closely involved with glucose sensitisation, is also modulated by the relative activation of AT(1) and AT(2) receptors. Such effects would suggest that important benefits may result from the use of ARBs in clinical practice, although confirmation of the clinical relevance will depend upon the results of numerous ongoing studies.
 ...
PMID:Vascular protection in diabetes: a pharmacological view of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers. 1586 16

30-50% of patients presenting with symptoms of congestive heart failure exhibit a near normal left ventricular systolic function at rest, and an impaired diastolic function of the heart may be causative. Despite a better prognosis than in systolic heart failure, frequency of hospitalizations due to diastolic heart failure is comparable with systolic heart failure. According to the criteria of Vasan and Levy diagnosis of diastolic heart failure is probable, if symptoms and signs of heart failure are accompanied in proximity (within 72 h) by objective evidence of normal left ventricular systolic function. Newer echocardiographic techniques (e. g., tissue Doppler) aid to confirm the diagnosis and to determine the severity of dysfunction and may substitute invasive demonstration of impaired left ventricular relaxation, filling, compliance or stiffness for standardized diagnosis. Incorporation of biochemical test (BNP [brain natriuretic peptide]) allows differential diagnosis and may increase the accuracy of diagnosis. Due to inconsistent diagnostic criteria, data from prospective randomized controlled trials for the treatment of diastolic heart failure are rare. Basic principles include treatment of the underlying disease, i. e., control of hypertension, diabetes, or obstructive airway disease. Angiotensin 1 antagonists (ARB) have proven effective in regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (LIFE) and may reduce morbidity, but not mortality (CHARM). Maintenance of sinus rhythm, heart rate control (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers) and anti-ischemic therapy may be indicated in view of pathophysiological aspects. Diuretics should be administered with caution in patients with symptoms of congestion, digitalis is not useful in the treatment of isolated diastolic heart failure. The results of ongoing trials (e. g., I-Preserve) may offer new therapeutic options, and evidence-based guidelines for the so far often unsatisfactory treatment of diastolic dysfunction/heart failure are awaited.
 ...
PMID:[Dyspnea and normal systolic function]. 1591 35


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>