More aggressive targets for LDL and blood pressure slow atherosclerosis, reduce LV mass in diabetics
April 8, 2008 | Shelley Wood

Chicago, IL - Treating diabetic patients with high LDL and hypertension to lower-than-normal targets appears to produce regressions in atherosclerosis not seen in similar patients treated to standard target LDL and systolic blood-pressure levels, results from the Stop Atherosclerosis in Native Diabetics (SANDS) study suggest [1].

Writing in the April 9, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr Barbara V Howard (Medstar Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD) and colleagues note that while the use of a surrogate end point—in this case, change in carotid intima media thickness (IMT)—is not a substitute for hard clinical events, the findings support the idea that an aggressive two-pronged approach may be particularly beneficial in diabetics. Importantly, the changes were seen in patients who had had no previous cardiovascular events.

The study looked exclusively at American Indian men and women with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. According to Howard, this group was chosen because the LDL and blood-pressure targets have been previously validated in this population, while the carotid IMT and echocardiography measures have been shown to predict future events in this group. "We have also found over the years that studying American Indians with diabetes has been extremely relevant because this is a population that has classic type 2 diabetes; they've just had it longer, and so we know more about them," she said. "And now that there's an epidemic all through the US, what we've learned has been very valuable."


Lower is better

Patients were randomized to drug treatment to reach the standard targets of 100 mg/dL or lower for LDL and 130 mm Hg or lower for systolic blood pressure (SBP) or to a more aggressive target of 70 mg/dL or lower for LDL and 115 mm Hg or lower for SBP.

Howard et al report that, while both groups were successfully treated to their respective LDL and SBP targets over 12 months and both experienced similarly low rates of cardiovascular events, only patients in the aggressive target group experienced regression of atherosclerosis by IMT. Likewise, patients in the aggressive target group also experienced greater decreases in left ventricular mass, as measured by echocardiography.

Changes by treatment targets

End point
Aggressive
Standard
p
Atherosclerosis change (mm)
-0.012
+0.038
<0.001
LV mass index (g/mm2.7)
-2.4
-1.2
0.03
Adverse events (%)
38.5
26.7
0.005
Serious adverse events (%)*
0.2
0.004
0.18

*Serious adverse events related only to BP drugs, not lipid-lowering drugs

To download table as a slide, click on slide logo below

According to Howard, the atherosclerosis changes appeared to be linked to the LDL lowering, as other studies have shown, while the LV changes likely occurred in response to lower SBP.

"In our secondary analyses, we showed that the reduction in IMT was largely due to the LDL reduction. It's hard to tease that out, but from the models we've set up it looks to us that the LDL drop is driving the reduction in atherosclerosis, and the blood-pressure change was largely responsible for the improvement in the size of the heart."

While the study implies that there are greater gains to be had by treating diabetics to even lower LDL and SBP goals, Howard emphasizes that only a small number of clinical events occurred even in patients treated to standard targets. "Our study suggests that treating even to the standard targets, which most diabetics don't reach, is going to be very effective, although we need to look for longer, in more people, to be sure that the improvements that we saw in the neck vessels and in heart function will translate into lower events," she said. "The key is going to be cost/benefit. If, in fact, you could maintain that low rate of events in the standard group, that might be enough. In other words, if you control both their major risk factors, is it really worth the effort and money to go much lower? And is it worth the risks?"

In SANDS, rates of adverse events associated with drug therapy were higher in the more aggressively treated group, although rates of serious adverse events were no different. "There are some side effects, and you can't know in advance if these would become more of a problem over time," she told heartwire.

Source
  1. Howard BV, Roman MJ, Devereux RB, et al. Effect of lower targets for blood pressure and LDL cholesterol on atherosclerosis in diabetes: The SANDS randomized trial. JAMA 2008; 299:1678-1689.



Your comments
More aggressive targets for LDL and blood pressure slow atherosclerosis, reduce LV mass in diabeti
# 1 of 7
April 10, 2008 01:26 (EDT)
Greg Carrick MS, RPh
looks like "spin" to me
Greater treatment equals greater adverse events. Look at the chart. Maybe the decrease in intima media thickness is do to better control of insulin. Who decided that the serious adverse effects were due to BP treatment? When will you quit listening to the drug companies and admit that LDL has no effect on arteriosclerosis. Why do you have "experts" who take large amounts of money from the makers of statins. The total serious side effects of statins is near 40%. 40% of 100,000,000 patients equals 40,000,000 patients with life changing side effects. And remember, not one single women has ever been shown to benefit from statin use. When the truth gets out, the litigation liability will be staggering. Will your practice survive?
# 2 of 7
April 10, 2008 08:19 (EDT)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
looks like spin to me
Not as much spin as your message. One cannot refute the LDL and statin reduction on arteriosclerosis and events.

40% AE's on statins?

Your facts are maybe 40-50 years old, maybe more so.

It's nice to hear opposing views but yours are quite invalidated and innacurate. come outside for some sunshine.
# 3 of 7
April 10, 2008 09:49 (EDT)
Greg Carrick MS, RPh
Who says I can not refute
Give your pataints a copy of Dr Gravelines' book and then ask them if they have any side effects. Then check how many prescriptions you have written for those side effects. 40% might be low. Then ask them if a 1% reduction is worth the $6,000 they spent for the drug. And LDL still has nothing to do with it. Do you belive everything the drug companies pay you to belive?
# 4 of 7
April 10, 2008 09:58 (EDT)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
Got my eye on that new .........
Greg,
I'm missing my drug company check!! Does it come monthly or weekly? Please tell me where I can sign up. I"ve obviously been overlooked.
Melissa
# 5 of 7
April 11, 2008 01:14 (EDT)
D Hackam
statins save lives
Look at the Heart Protection Study, the CTT meta-analysis, 4S, SPARCL, the extended follow-up from WESCOPS. There are few interventions in medicine that save lives - statins are one of them.

Applied to a large population, even a 1% reduction in mortality will save 1000s of lives per nation per year. And prevent the need for CABG, PCI, plus non-fatal vascular events.

Statins are the best studied drugs in all of clinical medicine. They do not cause cancer or increase noncardiovascular death (in fact they may decrease it). They certainly extend life and prevent morbidity that leads directly to immense suffering. Anyone who has had a stroke could tell you this.

Same with ACE inhibitors, antiplatelets, ARBs, CCBs, and all the other cardioprotective vasculoprotective therapies that we use.

I shall now descend from my soapbox.

Thank you.
# 6 of 7
April 11, 2008 06:38 (EDT)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
You're still up there...........
Dan,
Although you may descend from your soapbox, you shall forever remain on a pedestal in my opinion.
Melissa
# 7 of 7
April 11, 2008 11:38 (EDT)
Paul Rosenblit
SANDS trial very supportive of contempoary guidelines
There will always be disbelievers in the results from well-controlled randomized clinical trials and the guidelines that result. In spite of their existence, we must continue to favor evidenced based medicine to extend the lives of patients with the genetics that predispose them to early demise.
Fundamentalists know what they believe and they know that nothing will change their minds.

You have to be logged in to add a comment to this article
Login
Username 
Password 
  Forgot your password?
 
Remember me on this computer
 
Join theheart.org community
Five reasons to become a member of the most trusted source of cardiology news:
1Be part of the conversation in our blogs and discussion forum
2Share your thoughts on our news or educational programs
3Receive exclusive newsletters related to your field of interest
4Access unique continuous medical education content
5See and read what leaders have to say about cardiology today
It is free and it only takes five minutes to join!
 
button
Previews
Featured CME