We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Individual variability in response to renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibition predicts cardiovascular outcome in patients with type 2 diabetes: A primary care cohort study.
Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism 2018 June
AIMS: To assess variability in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and albuminuria (urinary albumin creatinine ratio [UACR]) responses in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition, and to assess the association of response variability with cardiovascular outcomes.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study in patients with type 2 diabetes who started RAAS inhibition between 2007 and 2013 (n = 1600). Patients were identified from general practices in the Netherlands. Individual response in SBP and UACR was assessed during 15 months' follow-up. Patients were categorized as: good responders (∆SBP <0 mm Hg and ∆UACR <0%); intermediate responders (∆SBP <0 mm Hg and ∆UACR >0% or ∆SBP >0 mm Hg and ∆UACR <0%); or poor responders (∆SBP >0 mm Hg and ∆UACR >0%). Multivariable Cox regression was performed to test the association between initial RAAS inhibition response and subsequent cardiovascular outcomes.
RESULTS: After starting RAAS inhibition, the mean SBP change was -13.2 mm Hg and the median UACR was -36.6%, with large between-individual variability, both in SBP [5th to 95th percentile: 48.5-20] and UACR [5th to 95th percentile: -87.6 to 171.4]. In all, 812 patients (51%) were good responders, 353 (22%) had a good SBP but poor UACR response, 268 (17%) had a good UACR but poor SBP response, and 167 patients (10%) were poor responders. Good responders had a lower risk of cardiovascular events than poor responders (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.86; P = .012).
CONCLUSIONS: SBP and UACR response after RAAS inhibition initiation varied between and within individual patients with type 2 diabetes treated in primary care. Poor responders had the highest risk of cardiovascular events, therefore, more efforts are needed to develop personalized treatment plans for these patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study in patients with type 2 diabetes who started RAAS inhibition between 2007 and 2013 (n = 1600). Patients were identified from general practices in the Netherlands. Individual response in SBP and UACR was assessed during 15 months' follow-up. Patients were categorized as: good responders (∆SBP <0 mm Hg and ∆UACR <0%); intermediate responders (∆SBP <0 mm Hg and ∆UACR >0% or ∆SBP >0 mm Hg and ∆UACR <0%); or poor responders (∆SBP >0 mm Hg and ∆UACR >0%). Multivariable Cox regression was performed to test the association between initial RAAS inhibition response and subsequent cardiovascular outcomes.
RESULTS: After starting RAAS inhibition, the mean SBP change was -13.2 mm Hg and the median UACR was -36.6%, with large between-individual variability, both in SBP [5th to 95th percentile: 48.5-20] and UACR [5th to 95th percentile: -87.6 to 171.4]. In all, 812 patients (51%) were good responders, 353 (22%) had a good SBP but poor UACR response, 268 (17%) had a good UACR but poor SBP response, and 167 patients (10%) were poor responders. Good responders had a lower risk of cardiovascular events than poor responders (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.86; P = .012).
CONCLUSIONS: SBP and UACR response after RAAS inhibition initiation varied between and within individual patients with type 2 diabetes treated in primary care. Poor responders had the highest risk of cardiovascular events, therefore, more efforts are needed to develop personalized treatment plans for these patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app