No abstract

To better understand potential associations of circulating adhesion molecules (cAMs) with diabetic microangiopathy, circulating serum concentrations of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (cICAM-1), vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (cVCAM-1), and endothelial leukocyte adhesion molecule-1 (cELAM-1) were determined in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) (n = 70) presenting with varying degree of metabolic control and status of diabetic late complications, and were compared with age-matched healthy subjects (n = 70) in a cross-sectional study. Concentrations of cICAM-1 and cVCAM-1 were elevated in IDDM vs. age-matched controls (cICAM-1: 276 +/- 71 vs. 212 +/- 57 ng/mL; P < 0.0001; cVCAM-1: 781 +/- 245 vs. 615 +/- 151 ng/mL; P < 0.0001), whereas cELAM-1 did not differ between the groups (cELAM-1: 50 +/- 25 vs. 46 +/- 23 ng/mL, P = 0.31). The levels of cVCAM-1 were more markedly elevated in IDDM patients with diabetic retinopathy (n = 32) than in those without (n = 38) (cVCAM-1: 848 +/- 281 vs. 724 +/- 197 ng/mL, P < 0.05), as well as in patients with micro- or macroalbuminuria (n = 10) vs. those without (n = 60) (cVCAM-1: 947 +/- 256 ng/mL vs. 753 +/- 234 ng/mL, P < 0.05), whereas no difference in cICAM-1 and cELAM-1 was apparent regarding the clinical status of diabetic microangiopathy. No correlations were found between hemoglobin A1e and cAMs in the individual subgroups of patients and healthy subjects. Interestingly, however, low density lipoprotein cholesterol correlated with cVCAM-1 (r = 0.38, P = 0.03) in IDDM patients with diabetic microangiopathy (n = 33), but not in healthy controls or patients without microangiopathy (n = 37). Analyzing the pooled data of diabetic patients and healthy subjects (n = 140), concentrations of cICAM-1 were markedly related to cVCAM-1 (r = 0.45, P < 0.0001) and cELAM-1 (r = 0.31, P < 0.0002), whereas cVCAM-1 was related less to cELAM-1 (r = 0.19, P = 0.03), respectively. We conclude that, irrespective of actual metabolic control, serum concentrations of cICAM-1 and cVCAM-1 but not cELAM-1 are elevated in patients with IDDM, reflecting ongoing endothelial cell stimulation and leukocyte activation. More specifically, more marked elevation of cVCAM-1 may even hint at clinically manifest diabetic microangiopathy.

The disclosure of proven cardiorenal benefits with certain antidiabetic agents was supposed to herald a new era in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially for the many patients with T2D who are at high risk for cardiovascular and renal events. However, as the evidence in favour of various sodium–glucose transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) accumulates, prescriptions of these agents continue to stagnate, even among eligible, at-risk patients. By contrast, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) DPP-4i remain more widely used than SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA in these patients, despite a similar cost to SGLT2i and a large body of evidence showing no clear benefit on cardiorenal outcomes. We are a group of diabetologists united by a shared concern that clinical inertia is preventing these patients from receiving life-saving treatments, as well as placing them at greater risk of hospitalisation for heart failure and progression of renal disease. We propose a manifesto for change, in order to increase uptake of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA in appropriate patients as a matter of urgency, especially those who could be readily switched from an agent without proven cardiorenal benefit. Central to our manifesto is a shift from linear treatment algorithms based on HbA1c target setting to parallel, independent considerations of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure and renal risks, in accordance with newly updated guidelines. Finally, we call upon all colleagues to play their part in implementing our manifesto at a local level, ensuring that patients do not pay a heavy price for continued clinical inertia in T2D.

In this large diabetic cohort, smallest bias and highest accuracy were observed for the MDRD.

Compelling evidence supports the effectiveness of the reduction of total and LDL cholesterol (TC and LDL-C) in primarily preventing cardiovascular events, within the framework of life-long prevention programs mainly consisting in lifestyle changes. Pharmacological treatment should be introduced when lifestyle changes, including use of nutraceuticals, have failed. ESC/EAS guidelines list a number of nutraceutical compounds and functional foods which have been individually studied in randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs). To date only a proprietary formulation of three naturally occurring substances with putative complementary lipid-lowering properties - red yeast rice, policosanol and berberine - combined with folic acid, astaxanthin, and coenzyme Q10 (Armolipid Plus) has been extensively investigated in several RCTs, 7 of which were placebo-controlled, 2 were ezetimibe comparators and 4 were "real life" studies comparing diet and Armolipid Plus to diet alone. The trials included mostly patients with mild to moderate dyslipidemia, treated for 6-48 weeks. The trials also included special populations and patients in whom statins were contraindicated or who could not tolerate them. Armolipid Plus has proved to be able to achieve significant reductions in TC (11-21%) and in LDL-C (15-31%) levels, which is equivalent to expectations from low dose statins. In patients intolerant to statins, who do not achieve their therapeutic target with ezetimibe, Armolipid Plus can achieve a further 10% improvement in TC and LDL-C. The safety and tolerability of Armolipid Plus were excellent, thought likely due to the intentional combination of low doses of its active ingredients: low enough not to be associated with untoward effects, but high enough to exert therapeutic effects in combination with other complementary substances. Consequently, in the event of intolerance to statins, Armolipid Plus offers an effective alternative, which is devoid of the safety risks associated with synthetic pharmacological therapy. In conclusion Armolipid Plus, in addition to dietary measures, could be a rational choice for individuals with mild to moderate hyperlipidemia and for all dyslipidemic patients in whom statins are not indicated or who cannot tolerate them.