HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Implications of the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study

	INTRODUCTION

 
Diabetes is a metabolic disorder primarily characterized by elevated blood glucose levels and by microvascular and cardiovascular complications that substantially increase the morbidity and mortality associated with the disease and reduce the quality of life. Type 1 diabetes is characterized by total reliance on exogenous insulin for survival and comprises 10% of all cases of diabetes. The more prevalent form of diabetes, called type 2, comprising 90% of all people with diabetes, is characterized by insulin deficiency and/or insulin resistance.

An association between the complications of diabetes and elevated blood glucose levels was postulated in the early part of this century. However, only in the last 3 decades has a substantial body of animal experimental studies and human observational studies and clinical trials directly linked hyperglycemia with the development of diabetic complications (1). Some of these studies have also demonstrated that treatment that lowers blood glucose reduces the risks of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy.

Notable are the results of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) (2) and the similarly designed but smaller Stockholm Diabetes Intervention Study (3). These studies showed unequivocally in type 1 diabetes that lowering blood glucose delayed the onset and slowed the progression of microvascular complications. Risk reductions for various outcomes ranged from 35 to 75%. Secondary analyses in these studies showed strong relationships between the risks of developing these complications and glycemic exposure over time. Moreover, there was no discernable glucose threshold, i.e., there was a continuous reduction in complications as glycemic levels approached the normal range. Improved glycemic control was also associated with reduced cardiovascular events in the DCCT, but the difference was not statistically significant. Perhaps this was because the population studied was young adults and therefore the event rate was very low.

Many of the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

	SUMMARY OF THE MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE UKPDS

 

	QUESTION 1: How was the UKPDS conducted?

 

	QUESTION 2: What has the UKPDS contributed to our understanding of the biology of diabetic complications?

 

	QUESTION 3: What level of glucose or blood pressure control do the UKPDS results suggest should be achieved in patients with type 2 diabetes?

 

	QUESTION 4: What are the risks of aggressive glucose or blood pressure control?

 

	QUESTION 5: What differences were observed between the various forms of intensive therapy?

 

	QUESTION 6: What were the role and results of metformin therapy in the UKPDS?

 

	QUESTION 7: What were the effects of blood pressure control?

 

	QUESTION 8: Is tight control contraindicated in any group of type 2 diabetic patients?

 

	QUESTION 9: Are the results of the UKPDS achievable for most people with diabetes?

 

	QUESTION 10: Are there other major unanswered questions in the treatment of diabetes?

 

	CONCLUSIONS

 

	Footnotes

 

	References

 

CiteULike    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?