DEFINING TOMORROW'S VASCULAR STRATEGIES
×
Register now to R3i !
Your login
Your password
Confirm your password
Your email
I agree to receive the R3i newsletter
Mar 2024
The microvascular-macrovascular interplay: the next target?
Jan 2024
Targeting residual cardiovascular risk: what’s in the pipeline?
Sep 2023
Remnant cholesterol – evolving evidence
Jul 2023
Call to action on residual stroke risk
Apr 2023
Residual risk in 2023: where to?
Dec 2022
Lipid-related residual risk: lessons from PROMINENT?
Sep 2022
Residual cardiovascular risk: is apolipoprotein B the preferred marker?
Jul 2022
Residual vascular risk in chronic kidney disease: new options on the horizon
Feb 2022
Looking back at 2021 – what made the news?
Nov 2021
New ACC guidance addresses unmet clinical needs for high-risk patients with mild to moderate hypertriglyceridemia
Sep 2021
Residual vascular risk: What matters?
Aug 2021
Understanding vein graft failure: a role for PPARalpha in pathobiology
May 2021
Residual cardiovascular risk: how to identify?
Apr 2021
Metabolic syndrome and COVID-19
Mar 2021
Elevated triglyceride: linking ASCVD and dementia
Feb 2021
Does SPPARMα offer new opportunities in metabolic syndrome and NAFLD?
Jan 2021
Omega-3 fatty acids for residual cardiovascular risk: more questions than answers
Oct 2020
Targeting triglycerides: Novel agents expand the field
Jul 2020
Why multidrug approaches are needed in NASH: insights with pemafibrate
Jun 2020
Triglyceride-rich remnant lipoproteins: a new therapeutic target in aortic valve stenosis?
Mar 2020
Lowering triglycerides or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: which provides greater clinical benefit?
Feb 2020
The omega-3 fatty acid conundrum
Dec 2019
Focus on stroke: more input to address residual cardiovascular risk
Jul 2019
International Expert Consensus on Selective Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor Alpha Modulator (SPPARMα): New opportunities for targeting modifiable residual cardiovascular risk
Nov 2018
Residual cardiovascular risk: triglyceride metabolism and genetics provide a key
Jul 2018
The clinical gap for managing residual cardiovascular risk: will new approaches make the difference?
Apr 2018
Residual cardiovascular risk: refocus on a multifactorial approach
Feb 2018
Optimizing treatment benefit: the tenet of personalized medicine
Jan 2018
Addressing residual cardiovascular risk – back to basics?
Dec 2017
Residual risk of heart failure: how to address this global epidemic?
Oct 2017
Remnants and residual cardiovascular risk: triglycerides or cholesterol?
Jul 2017
Targeting residual cardiovascular risk: lipids and beyond…
Jun 2017
Why we need to re-focus on Latin America.
Apr 2017
Residual cardiovascular risk in the Middle East: a perfect storm in the making
Feb 2017
A global call to action on residual cardiovascular risk
Dec 2016
SPPARM?: more than one way to tackle residual risk
Oct 2016
Remnants linked with diabetic myocardial dysfunction
Sep 2016
New study links elevated triglycerides with plaque progression
Aug 2016
Atherogenic dyslipidaemia: a risk factor for silent coronary artery disease
Jul 2016
SPPARM?: a concept becomes clinical reality
Jun 2016
Remnant cholesterol back in the news
May 2016
Back to the future: triglycerides revisited
Apr 2016
Unravelling the heritability of triglycerides and coronary risk
Mar 2016
Will residual cardiovascular risk meet its nemesis in 2016?
Feb 2016
Tackling residual cardiovascular risk: a case for targeting postprandial triglycerides?
Jan 2016
Looking back at 2015: lipid highlights
Dec 2015
Legacy effects in cardiovascular prevention
Nov 2015
Residual cardiovascular risk: it’s not just lipids!
Oct 2015
Addressing residual vascular risk: beyond pharmacotherapy
Sep 2015
Back to basics: triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, remnants and residual vascular risk
Jul 2015
Beyond the PCSK9 decade: what's next?
Jun 2015
Targeting triglycerides: what lies on the horizon for novel therapies?
May 2015
Do we need new lipid biomarkers for residual cardiovascular risk?
Apr 2015
The Residual Risk Debate Hots Up: Lowering LDL-C or lowering remnant cholesterol?
Mar 2015
Call for action on stroke
Feb 2015
Triglycerides: the tide has turned
Jan 2015
Post IMPROVE-IT: Where to now for residual risk?
Dec 2014
R3i publishes new Call to Action paper: Residual Microvascular Risk in Type 2 Diabetes in 2014: Is it Time for a Re-Think?
Sep 2014
Targeting residual vascular risk: round-up from ESC Congress 2014 and beyond
Jul 2014
Lipid-related residual cardiovascular risk: a new therapeutic target on the horizon
Mar 2014
Non-HDL-C and residual cardiovascular risk: the Lp(a) perspective
Feb 2014
REALIST Micro, atherogenic dyslipidaemia and residual microvascular risk
Jan 2014
Looking back at 2013: what have we learned about residual vascular risk?
Dec 2013
Long-overdue US guidelines for lipid management oversimplify the evidence
Nov 2013
Triglycerides and residual cardiovascular risk: where now?
Oct 2013
How to target residual cardiovascular risk?
Sep 2013
The Residual Vascular Risk Conundrum: Why we should target atherogenic dyslipidaemia
Jul 2013
Targeting atherogenic dyslipidemia: we need to do better
Apr 2013
Is PCSK9- targeted therapy the new hope for residual risk?
Mar 2013
Scope for multifocal approaches for reducing residual cardiovascular risk?
Feb 2013
Renewing the R3i call to action: Now more than ever we need to target and treat residual cardiovascular risk
Jan 2013
Time for a re-think on guidelines to reduce residual microvascular risk in diabetes?
Jan 2013
Addressing the residual burden of CVD in renal impairment: do PPARa agonists provide an answer?
Jan 2013
Re-evaluating options for residual risk post-HPS2-THRIVE : are SPPARMs the answer?
Dec 2012
Dysfunctional HDL: an additional target for reducing residual risk
Nov 2012
Egg consumption: a hidden residual risk factor
Oct 2012
Call to action: re-emphasising the importance of targeting residual vascular risk
Jun 2012
Time to prioritise atherogenic dyslipidaemia to reduce residual microvascular risk?
Jan 2012
Residual vascular risk in chronic kidney disease: an overlooked high-risk group
Dec 2011
Introducing the HDL Resource Center: HDL science now available for clinicians
Oct 2011
Targeting reverse cholesterol transport: the future of residual vascular risk reduction?
Sep 2011
After SPARCL: Targeting cardio-cerebrovascular metabolic risk and thrombosis to reduce residual risk of stroke
Jul 2011
Challenging the conventional wisdom: Lessons from the FIELD study on diabetic nephropathy
May 2010
Lipids and residual risk of coronary heart disease in statin-treated patients
Mar 2010
ACCORD Lipid Study brings new hope to people with type 2 diabetes and atherogenic dyslipidemia
Mar 2010
Reducing residual risk of diabetic nephropathy: the role of lipoproteins
Dec 2009
ARBITER 6-HALTS: Implications for residual cardiovascular risk
Nov 2009
Microvascular event risk reduction in type 2 diabetes: New evidence from the FIELD study
Aug 2009
Fasting versus nonfasting triglycerides: Importance of triglyceride-regulating genetic polymorphisms to residual cardiovascular risk
Jul 2009
Residual risk of microvascular complications of diabetes: is intensive multitherapy the solution?
Apr 2009
Reducing residual vascular risk: modifiable and non modifiable residual vascular risk factors
Jan 2009
Micro- and macrovascular residual risk: one of the most challenging health problems of the moment
Nov 2008
Treated dyslipidemic patients remain at high residual risk of vascular events

R3i Editorial

20 July 2010
ACCORD Eye Study: a milestone in residual microvascular risk reduction for patients with type 2 diabetes
Prof. JC Fruchart, Prof. F Sacks, Prof. M Hermans
Board of the R3i trustees
 
Prof. JC Fruchart, Prof. F Sacks, Prof. M Hermans Reducing the large residual risk of diabetic retinopathy persisting despite provision of current evidence-based standards of care is one of the key priorities defined by the R3i Foundation. Thus, diabetic retinopathy remains one of the most devastating microvascular complications of hyperglycemia and a leading cause of blindness in populations of working age in industrialized countries.(1)

The ACCORD Eye results(2) confirm similar results in the FIELD study and raise the level of evidence for the beneficial effects of fenofibrate on diabetic retinopathy as suggested from the FIELD trial.(3)

As in the main ACCORD trial, (4) the ACCORD Eye substudy tested 3 interventions (intensive vs. standard glycemic control, intensive vs. standard blood pressure control, and simvastatin-fenofibrate combination vs. simvastatin alone) using a 2x2 factorial design. The primary microvascular clinical endpoint was progression of diabetic retinopathy ≥3 stages on the ETDRS scale* (5) or photocoagulation or vitrectomy for diabetic retinopathy.

When intensive glycemic control was compared to standard glycemic control, there was a significant 33% reduction of progression of diabetic retinopathy in the intensive treatment group (p=0.003). The novelty here is that tight glycemic control, already shown to slow progression of diabetic retinopathy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, remains effective in patients with a longer known duration of type 2 diabetes (about 10 years) and additional cardiovascular risk factors.

More disturbing was the excess of all-cause deaths in patients receiving the intensive glycemic treatment, that led to the premature termination of the ACCORD glycemic arm.(7) The reasons for the excess mortality remain at present unclear and might be treatment-dependent, since no excess mortality was reported in ADVANCE, (8) another clinical trial in which patients with type 2 diabetes were treated in order to achieve intensive glycemic control. In the latter study, in type 2 diabetes patients with similar characteristics as those included in ACCORD, no reduction in diabetic retinopathy was reported.

In ACCORD Eye, there was an apparent lack of beneficial effect of intensive blood pressure control on progression of retinopathy. This contrasts with previous results of the landmark United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),(9) in which tight blood pressure control slowed progression of retinopathy in patients with newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes. However, it took up to a 6-year follow-up in the UKPDS trial to achieve a meaningful difference in cumulative retinopathic events between treatment groups. Whether a longer duration of intensive blood pressure therapy might have resulted in a significant impact on progression of diabetic retinopathy in the ACCORD Eye study remains speculative.

The results of the glycemic control and blood pressure arms of ACCORD Eye underline the difficulty of demonstrating additional improvements in the management of diabetic eye disease. This makes the results observed in the lipid arm of ACCORD Eye all the more clinically relevant for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Progression of diabetic retinopathy reduced by 40% in patients treated with a simvastatin-fenofibrate combination

The primary endpoint of ACCORD Eye was significantly reduced by 40% after 4 years in patients treated with a simvastatin + fenofibrate combination compared to patients treated with simvastatin alone (adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.87; p=0.006). The rates of progression of diabetic retinopathy were 6.5% with the combination, versus 10.2% with simvastatin monotherapy, giving a 3.7% absolute risk reduction (ARR). Consequently, the number of patients needed to treat (NNT=1/ARR) with the combination over 4 years to avoid progression of diabetic retinopathy in one was 27.


It must be emphasized that about 50% of participants in the ACCORD Eye lipid arm had already signs or symptoms of diabetic retinopathy at baseline, and were therefore in secondary microvascular prevention. Also, other modifiable vascular risk factors were at or near goal according to current clinical practice guidelines. In particular, mean LDL-C at baseline was 97 mg/dL, and mean blood pressure was 131/74 mmHg. Thus, the ACCORD Eye lipid arm may be viewed as the embodiment of appropriate design for a residual vascular risk reduction trial.

In ACCORD Eye, a pharmacological intervention (fenofibrate) that improves dyslipidemia reduced the progression of diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Earlier trials with small samples had suggested an association between diabetic retinopathy and elevated levels of TGs or low levels of HDL-C. (10-13) However, the subgroup analysis of ACCORD Eye did not show any difference in outcome between patients with and without low baseline HDL-C levels, those with and without elevated TG levels, and those with both abnormalities, i.e. atherogenic dyslipidemia, at baseline. This contrasts with the results of ACCORD Lipid regarding macrovascular outcomes published earlier,(14) in which only those patients who had both type 2 diabetes and atherogenic dyslipidemia seemed to benefit from the simvastatin-fenofibrate combination.

In brief, ACCORD Eye demonstrates that the residual microvascular risk of diabetic retinopathy can be safely and effectively addressed by fenofibrate in patients with type 2 diabetes and a broad range of triglycerides and HDL-C. In contrast, the ACCORD Lipid main results showed that fenofibrate reduced macrovascular events only in those patients who had atherogenic dyslipidemia, i.e. TG>204 and HDL<42 mg/dL.

The R3i Foundation regards these results of the ACCORD Eye trial as a milestone in prevention of diabetic retinopathy. The R3i Foundation is keen to actively participate to ongoing and future debates focusing on the major clinical implications of this landmark trial.


* The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) classification comprises six categories of increasing diabetic retinopathy severity: (1) clinically absent diabetic retinopathy, (2) mild to moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), (3) moderate to severe NPDR, (4) severe NPDR, (5) very severe NPDR, and (6) proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).


References

1. Kempen JH. Arch Ophthalm 2004;122:552-63.
2. ACCORD Study Group & ACCORD-Eye Study Group. N Engl J Med. epub June 29, 2010.
3. Keech AC. Lancet 2007;370:1687–97.
4. Buse JB. Am J Cardiol 2007;99(12A):21i-33i.
5. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmology 1991;98:786-806.
6. United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group. UKPDS 33. Lancet 1998;352:837-53.
7. ACCORD Study Group. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2545-59.
8. The ADVANCE Collaborative Group. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2560-72.
9. United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Br Med J 1998;317:703-13.
10. Klein BEK. Ophthalmology 1991;98:1261-5.
11. Chew EY. Arch Ophthalm 1996;114:1079-84.
12. Miljanovic B. Diabetes 2004;53:2883-92.
13. Davis MD. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998;39:233-52.
14. ACCORD Study Group. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1563-74.
?>