Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 9664734

[In Process Citation]

Abstract

Diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM type 2) is a common disease that is associated with high mortality and morbidity due to macrovascular and microvascular complications. CHD mortality and morbidity is 2--3 times higher in diabetic than in non-diabetic patients/. There are many potentially atherogenic factors in diabetes these may underlie this problems. Except major risk factors (high serum cholesterol concentration, hypertension, cigarette smoking), insulin resistance is common in DM type 2 patients. The dyslipidemic component of insulin resistance is "atherogenic lipoprotein phenotype", its components include small LDL particles (pattern B) with higher atherogenic risk. Several recent studies have demonstrated the preponderance of small, dense LDL in patients with DM type 2 and IR. The question of whether small, dense LDL can be explained by triglyceride levels alone or whether it is directly related to DM type 2 and insulin resistance is still the subject of debate. If serum triglycerides exceed 1,3 mmol/l, small, dense LDL increases. The practical implication is that serum triglyceride levels should be maintained as low as possible to prevent the deleterious effects of triglycerides on LDL subclass distribution and size. There are several potential mechanisms to explain the increased atherogenicity of dense LDL (small dense LDL is more susceptible to lipid peroxidation and oxidation leading to its increased uptake by macrophages and subsequent removal by scavenger pathway, also has a lower binding affinity to LDL receptors). Theoretical grounds postulate that the treating of diabetic dyslipoproteinemias would reduce atherosclerosis disease. However, to date, there have been no intervention studies specifically designed to test this postulate in the diabetic population Such studies the Diabetes Atherosclerosis Intervention Study (DAIS), Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD), Collaborative Atorvastatin in Diabetes Study and lipid in Diabetes Study are currently in progress (Tab. 4, Fig. 2, Ref. 81.).

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Fabroya, S Cagan. 1998. [In Process Citation]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9664734/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗