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

This Article Abstract 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 Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Orchard, T. J. Articles by Becker, D. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Orchard, T. J. Articles by Becker, D. J. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Lipid and Blood Pressure Treatment Goals for Type 1 Diabetes

10-year incidence data from the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study

¹ Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
² Department of Allied Health, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania
³ Department of Pediatrics, Endocrinology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
OBJECTIVE—Subjects with type 1 diabetes are at high risk for many long-term complications, including early mortality and coronary artery disease (CAD). Few data are available on which to base goal levels for two major risk factors, namely blood pressure and lipid/lipoproteins. The objective of this study was to determine at which levels of LDL and HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure the relative risks of type 1 diabetic complications increase significantly.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Observational prospective study of 589 patients with childhood-onset type 1 diabetes (<17 years) aged 18 years at baseline; 10-year incidence of mortality, CAD, lower-extremity arterial disease, proliferative retinopathy, distal symmetric polyneuropathy, and overt nephropathy. Relative risks were determined using traditional groupings of blood pressure and lipid/lipoproteins, measured at baseline, using the lowest groupings (<100 mg/dl [2.6 mmol/l] LDL cholesterol, <45 mg/dl [1.1 mmol/l] HDL cholesterol, <100 mg/dl [1.1 mmol/l] triglycerides, <110 mmHg systolic blood pressure, and <80 mmHg diastolic blood pressure) as reference. Adjustments for age, sex, and glycemic control were examined.

RESULTS—Driven mainly by strong relationships (RR range 1.8–12.1) with mortality, CAD, and overt nephropathy, suggested goal levels are as follows: LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l), HDL cholesterol >45 mg/dl (1.1 mmol/l), triglycerides <150 mg/dl (1.7 mmol/l), systolic blood pressure <120 mmHg, and diastolic blood pressure <80 mmHg. Age, sex, and glycemic control had little influence on these goals.

CONCLUSIONS—Although observational in nature, these data strongly support the case for vigorous control of lipid levels and blood pressure in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Abbreviations: ADA, American Diabetes Association • CAD, coronary artery disease • DCCT, Diabetes Control and Complications Trial • DSP, distal symmetric polyneuropathy • EDC, Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study • LEAD, lower extremity arterial disease • ON, overt nephropathy • PR, proliferative retinopathy • RR, relative risk

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Current lipid (1,2) and blood pressure (3) guidelines are somewhat "nondefinitive" in terms of recommendations for individuals with diabetes. There is, however, general agreement that people with diabetes form a uniquely high-risk group in terms of cardiovascular disease. Relative risks at all levels of blood pressure and cholesterol are increased more than twofold (4,5). This has led to recommendations (1,2) that diabetes could be treated as more than just another risk factor, such that individuals with diabetes should be treated more vigorously regarding cardiovascular risk factors, e.g., to the same levels as individuals with existing coronary artery disease (CAD) (6). This approach has received considerable support from the demonstration that risk of developing CAD is similar in individuals with diabetes but without CAD and in individuals with CAD but without diabetes (7). This approach is also supported by the results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) Study, which suggest that individuals with diabetes uniquely benefit from a diastolic blood pressure goal of 80 mmHg (8).

Guidelines for prevention of CAD in diabetes generally refer to type 2 diabetes and make little mention of, or specific recommendations for, type 1 diabetes. This largely reflects a relative lack of appropriate data (1). Because of the higher occurrence of other microvascular complications, setting goals is more complex in type 1 diabetes. This is particularly true because these complications may also relate to blood lipids and blood pressure. For example, renal disease (9, 10, 11) is predicted by blood lipids, and blood pressure predicts renal disease (12,13), neuropathy (14), and retinopathy (15,16). This is further complicated by a relationship between renal disease and CAD in type 1 diabetes (17,18). Finally, the relatively young age of type 1 diabetic patients and the influence of glycemic control on risk factors and complications add further dimensions to be considered.

This report is designed to provide relevant epidemiologic data and at least partially fill the void noted by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), which stated, in reference to type 1 diabetes, that observational data on lipoproteins and coronary heart disease are relatively few (1). We have examined the predictive power of baseline lipid and blood pressure measures, using a range of "traditional" cutoff levels, in the 10-year follow-up data of the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study (EDC). The influences of age and glycemic control on the lipid and blood pressure predictions of macrovascular disease (coronary and lower-extremity arterial), microvascular disease (overt nephropathy, proliferative retinopathy, and distal symmetrical polyneuropathy), and total mortality are also considered.

	RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
The Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study is a 10-year prospective study based on a well-defined cohort of adults with childhood-onset type 1 diabetes (<17 years). The study included a total of 658 eligible subjects (325 women and 333 men) diagnosed between 1 January 1950 and 30 May 1980 who were first seen at baseline (1986–1988). This report focuses on the 589 patients aged 18 years at baseline whose mean age at baseline was 28.7 years and in whom the duration of diabetes was 20.1 years. The patients were seen biennially thereafter. For this analysis, a prospective design was used in which baseline risk factors were compared with the incidence of complications during the following 10 years.

Before each cycle of examinations, information was collected from the participants of the study by questionnaire; questions concerned demographic characteristics, medical history, and health care behaviors as previously described (19,20). During each cycle, to document complications of diabetes, a trained internist recorded a standardized medical history and performed a clinical examination. CAD was defined as angina diagnosed by a clinic physician; myocardial infarction confirmed by Minnesota Q-wave electrocardiography (code 1.1 or 1.2) and/or validated hospital records; CAD death confirmed by death certificate; non–Q-wave ischemia confirmed by Minnesota codes 1.3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, or 7.1; or coronary artery stenosis 50% confirmed by angiography. Lower-extremity arterial disease (LEAD) was defined as amputation for vascular cause, intermittent claudication (Rose questionnaire), or ankle brachial index <0.9.

A 12-lead electrocardiogram was obtained, along with blood pressures measured by a random-zero sphygmomanometer according to a standardized protocol (Hypertension Detection and Follow-Up) (21) after a 5-min rest period. Blood pressure levels were examined, using the mean of the second and third readings, in the following groups: systolic <110, 110–119, 120–129, 130 mmHg; diastolic <80, 80–84, 85–89, 90 mmHg. Patients taking medications to control blood pressure were placed in the highest categories.

Fasting blood samples were taken from each participant for the measurement of lipids, lipoproteins, and stable glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA₁). HDL cholesterol was determined by a heparin and manganese procedure, a modification (22) of the Lipid Research Clinics method (23). The concentration of HDL3 was measured after precipitation of HDL2 by dextran sulfate. Cholesterol was measured enzymatically (24), as were triglycerides (25). LDL cholesterol levels were calculated from measurements of the levels of total cholesterol, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol (26). The lipids were examined in the following groups: HDL cholesterol <45, 45–54, 55 mg/dl (<1.1, 1.1–1.4, 1.4 mmol/l); LDL cholesterol <100, 100–129, 130–159, 160 mg/dl (<2.6, 2.6–3.3, 3.3–4.1, 4.1 mmol/l); triglycerides <100, 100–149, 150–199, 200 mg/dl (<1.1, 1.1–1.7, 1.7–2.2, 2.3 mmol/l). The few patients on lipid-lowering therapy (n = 4) were placed in the highest category for LDL cholesterol and triglycerides and the lowest category for HDL cholesterol.

HbA₁ was originally measured in saline-incubated samples by microcolumn cation-exchange chromatography (Isolab, Akron, OH). On 26 October 1987, the method was changed to high-performance liquid chromatography (Diamat; Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). Readings with the two methods were shown to be almost identical (r = 0.95; Diamat HbA₁ = 0.18 + 1.00 Isolab HbA₁). The difference between the means of the two methods was 0.158% (normal range 4.9–7.3% HbA₁).

Nephropathy status was determined based on consistent results from at least two of three (24-h, overnight, random, or postclinic) timed urine albumin excretion rates. Urinary albumin was determined immunonephelometrically (27). Overt nephropathy (ON) was defined as an albumin excretion rate >200 µg/min or end-stage renal disease (renal dialysis or transplant). Proliferative retinopathy (PR) was determined by stereoscopic fundus photography and grades >60 on the modified Airlie House System or laser therapy for PR. Distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) was based on a clinical neurological evaluation, performed by a trained internist, consistent with that used for the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) (28). A standard clinical history was recorded and included any concurrent disease processes that could cause neuropathy, exposure to known neurotoxins, and family history of neuromuscular disorders. Participants were questioned about sensory, motor, and autonomic symptoms. Positive responses were recorded: for example, numbness, dysesthesia and/or paresthesia, hypersensitivity to touch, and burning, aching, or stabbing pain in the hands and/or feet. A standard neurological examination included evaluation of reflex activity and sensation to light touch (cotton wool), pain (pinprick), vibration (tuning fork), and proprioception. Muscle weakness, coordination, and gait were also assessed. DSP was defined as the presence of two or more of the following: symptoms, sensory and/or motor signs, absent (or present only with reinforcement) tendon reflexes. From the 4-year follow-up examination (cycle 3) onward, DSP was confirmed using, in addition to the above, the presence of a vibratory threshold above the age-specific normal range using the Vibratron II tester (Physitemp Instruments, Clifton, NJ). The criteria for an abnormal vibratory threshold are >2.39, >2.56, and >2.89 vibration units for ages 35, 36–50, and >50 years, respectively (29). Vibratory sensory thresholds were measured on the plantar aspect of the great toe on the dominant side of the body and gave an assessment of large sensory nerve fibers. A forced-choice procedure for the determination of vibratory threshold was used. Precision (repeatability) data have been reported previously in detail (30). The coefficient of variation for the great toe was 8%.

Statistical analysis
Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine the relative hazard for each risk factor grouping; the lowest risk factor group was used as a reference. Adjustments for age and glycemic control were examined in separate models. To save space and confusion, confidence intervals around the relative risks have not been given, although significant P values (<0.05) have been reported. Because age and duration are highly correlated (r = 0.84), adjustment for one effectively adjusts for the other. To save space, only age adjusted data are presented.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
The study population for each analysis comprised all patients with the baseline measure of interest who did not have the specific complication of interest and for whom follow-up data were available. Therefore, the number of events/number of patients at risk was 67/589 for mortality, 105/540 for CAD, 92/542 for LEAD, 52/420 for ON, 120/351 for DSP, and 148/203 for PR. For reference purposes, the distribution of lipid fractions and blood pressures are listed in Table 1. The relative risks (RRs) associated with levels of each risk factor for the six complications studied compared with the lowest risk factor level for all subjects are shown in Table 2.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2 — Relative risks by baseline lipid or blood pressure level: 10-year follow-up of the EDC cohort aged 18 years at baseline

Adjustment for age (Fig. 1) had only a minimal effect, which was, as expected, a slight decrease in the magnitude of RR. For total mortality, all significant RRs remained, whereas for CAD, the only changes were for LDL cholesterol (100–129 and 130–159 mg/dl [2.6–3.3 and 3.3–4.1 mmol/l]; RRs reduced to 1.6 from 1.8 and 2.3, respectively). No differences in significance levels were seen for either LEAD or PR, whereas for DSP, the only loss of significance was for diastolic blood pressure 85–89 mmHg, with the RR decreasing from 2.0 (P < 0.05) to 1.8 (NS). RRs for ON were marginally strengthened by age adjustment. Figure 1A shows these age-adjusted RRs for the lipid/lipoproteins, and Fig. 1B shows the age-adjusted RRs for blood pressure.

View larger version (99K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1 — A: Age-adjusted relative risks for lipid/lipoproteins versus complications in type 1 diabetes; EDC 10-year follow-up. B: Age-adjusted relative risks for blood pressure versus complications in type 1 diabetes; EDC 10-year follow-up.

Because of the increased risks seen in triglyceride concentrations across the two lowest groupings, further analyses were performed with groupings of patients with triglyceride levels of 100–129 and 130–149 mg/dl (1.1–1.5 and 1.5–1.7 mmol/l), which revealed no difference in risk across these two categories, suggesting that 150 mg/dl (1.7 mmol/l) is the better cutoff level. Similar analyses were performed to examine HDL levels <45 mg/dl (1.1 mmol/l) (i.e., <35 and 35–44 mg/dl [<0.9 and 0.9–1.1 mmol/l]) with the same result, i.e., no lower discriminating threshold was apparent.

Finally, instead of age adjustment in the Cox model, analyses were repeated stratifying patients by age into two groups: 18–29 and 30 years of age (maximum n = 331 and 258, respectively). Few major differences were seen by age-group, with the "thresholds" reported above generally applying to both age- groups. However, one major difference was the effect of LDL cholesterol on mortality risk, with moderate RRs for patients aged 18–29 years (1.7–3.2) but extremely high RRs for patients aged 30 years (i.e., for LDL cholesterol 100–129, 130–159, 160 mg/dl [2.6–3.3, 3.3–4.1, 4.1 mmol/l], RR = 13.5, 10.4, and 27.4, respectively). For LEAD, the LDL cholesterol relationship was only seen in patients aged 30 years when the RR was significantly increased with or without HbA₁ adjustment, for the 130–159 and 160 mg/dl (3.3–4.1 and 4.1 mmol/l) group. The LDL cholesterol association was also weakened for DSP in the older age-group but remained significant in those aged 18–29 years (e.g., LDL 130–159 mg/dl [3.3–4.1 mmol/l], RR = 2.8 [P < 0.01]) for patients aged 18–29 years and RR = 1.3 (NS) for those 30 years.

Based on these results, it is recommended that the treatment goals for type 1 diabetic patients should be LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l), HDL cholesterol >45 mg/dl (1.1 mmol/l), triglycerides <150 mg/dl (1.7 mmol/l), systolic blood pressure <120 mmHg, and diastolic blood pressure <80 mmHg.

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
The above recommendations are based on the overall data presented for the six major complications, with a particular emphasis on total mortality and its two major contributors, CAD and ON. In terms of the lipid/lipoproteins, the goal LDL cholesterol level of 100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l) seems appropriate for mortality and CAD, although it could be argued that 130 mg/dl (3.3 mmol/l) would be more appropriate for the other complications. A higher goal for triglyceride concentration on the basis that 200 mg/dl (2.3 mmol/l) is the risk level for LEAD is outweighed by the predictive power of 150 mg/dl (1.7 mmol/l) for mortality, CAD, and ON. Therefore, these data strongly suggest that the triglyceride concentration should be lower than the inferred goal of 200 mg/dl (2.3 mmol/l) in the ADA and National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines (1,2) and provide considerable support for the LDL cholesterol goal of 100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l) advocated by the ADA for type 2 diabetes being extended to type 1 diabetes (6). It should be noted that all data in this report are "primary," i.e., based on incidence events in subjects free from the complication in question. We have insufficient follow-up time and sample size to assess goal levels for type 1 diabetic subjects with preexisting CAD, etc., and would therefore defer to the type 2 diabetes recommendations by default. With the exception of CAD, HDL cholesterol did not show strong and consistent associations. Because an HDL cholesterol level of 45–54 mg/dl (1.1–1.4 mmol/l) was equally as predictive as 55 mg/dl (1.4 mmol/l) for CAD, a goal of 45 mg/dl (1.1 mmol/l) is recommended.

The blood pressure recommendations pose an additional problem, in that these determinations were based on random zero readings, which are not generally used in clinical practice and tend to underrecord blood pressure (particularly systolic). For this reason, an argument could be made to increase the goal levels to 130/85 rather than the 120/80 advocated in Table 1. On the other hand, the predictive power of systolic blood pressure of 110 mmHg for CAD and diastolic blood pressure 80 mmHg for total mortality, LEAD, and PR justify our lower goal. The RR for diastolic blood pressure was also considerable (23), although it was not significant for ON, reflecting the relatively low number of events (n = 52).

The sex and age adjustments were generally minor and did not suggest a need for sex- or age-specific goals. Therefore, these goals would seem applicable to both men and women with type 1 diabetes aged 18–55 years. It should be noted that age and duration are highly correlated in this cohort (r = 0.84), and thus, controlling for age effectively controls for duration. Therefore, it follows that duration-specific or -adjusted target values are also not indicated. An additional question is whether these goals are appropriate for type 1 diabetic subjects aged <18 years. We have observed five incident CAD events (including one fatal) in subjects aged <18 years at baseline during the 10-year follow-up. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to extend these goals to younger subjects.

The issue of glycemic control is theoretically more complex, because one might argue that blood pressure and lipid goals should be set in the face of good glycemic control clearly indicated for all type 1 diabetic subjects (31). However, in practical terms, adjustment for HbA₁ had only a minor effect overall and marginally strengthened CAD associations. Although this latter observation might seem surprising, it is consistent with our repeated observations that glycemic control is not strongly associated with CAD in this cohort (18,32) and some (33) but not all (34) other type 1 diabetes cohorts. Prior glycemic control was also not associated with carotid intima-medial thickness in the major DCCT/EDC follow-up study (34). The interpretation of these data, including in this report the effect of controlling for glycemia, is clearly that blood pressure and lipid goals should be seen as separate issues (rather than being secondary to glycemia) and pursued just as vigorously in terms of mortality and CAD prevention. Furthermore, it is important to note that the absolute event rates for each complication are in the 2–5% rate per year, meeting the European and U.K. criteria of risk that justify pharmacologic intervention.

Clearly, the goals derived from these epidemiologic observations are only one of many factors to consider in developing management plans and thresholds for pharmacologic intervention. In particular, clinical trial evidence of benefit is desirable. Sadly, few such trials have been conducted in type 1 diabetes concerning lipids or blood pressure; however, those that have been conducted are generally positive though on a small scale (35,36). Given our current knowledge of the benefits of lowering lipid levels and blood pressure in type 2 diabetic and general populations, it seems unlikely that definitive trials will be conducted in type 1 diabetes. Although these goals are ambitious, given the efficacy of modern medications, particularly statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, we believe they are achievable for most patients. Finally, although these data demonstrate a strong relationship between blood pressure and lipids and the incidence of complications, they in no way diminish the need for optimal glycemic control for the prevention of type 1 diabetes microvascular complications, which has been well demonstrated both epidemiologically in this cohort (37) and interventionally in the DCCT trial (31).

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health Grant DK-34818.

	FOOTNOTES

 
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Trevor J. Orchard, MD, University of Pittsburgh, DLR Building, 3512 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. E-mail: tjo{at}pitt.edu.

Received for publication 21 November 2000 and accepted in revised form 22 February 2001.

T.J.O. has received research support from Merck, has served as a consultant to Merck, Schering Plough, and Bayer within the past year, is a minor stockholder of Bristol Myers Squibb, and has received speaking honoraria from SmithKline Beecham and Bayer.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

	References

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 

1. American Diabetes Association: Management of dyslipidemia in adults with diabetes (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 21:179–182, 1998[Medline]
   
2. Expert Panel: Summary on the second report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult Treatment Panel II). J Am Med Assoc 269:3015–3023, 1993[Medline]
   
3. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med 157:2413–2446, 1997[Abstract]
   
4. Stamler J, Vaccaro O, Neaton JD, Wentworth D: Diabetes, other risk factors, and 12-yr cardiovascular mortality for men screened in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Diabetes Care 16:434–444, 1993[Abstract]
   
5. Manson JE, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Królewski AS, Rosner B, Arky RA, Speizer FE, Hennekens CH: A prospective study of maturity-onset diabetes mellitus and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke in women. Arch Intern Med 151:1141–1147, 1991[Abstract]
   
6. American Diabetes Association: Management of dyslipidemia in adults with diabetes (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 23:S57–S60, 2000
   
7. Haffner SM, Lehto S, Rönnemaa T, Pyörälä K, Laakso M: Coronary heart disease mortality in type 2 diabetic and non-diabetic subjects with and without previous myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 339:229–234, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
8. Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, Dahlöf B, Elmfeldt D, Julius S, et al: Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the hypertension optimal treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet 351:1755–1762, 1998[Medline]
   
9. Coonrod BA, Ellis D, Becker DJ, Bunker CH, Kelsey SF, Lloyd CE, Drash AL, Kuller LH, Orchard TJ: Predictors of microalbuminuria in individuals with IDDM: Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study. Diabetes Care 16:1376–1383, 1993[Abstract]
   
10. Nowalk MP, Stuhldreher WL, Becker D, Ellis D, Caggiula AW, Orchard TJ: The relationship of protein intake to changes in renal function in an adult population with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Nutr Metab 9:247–257, 1996
    
11. Krolewski AS, Warram JH, Christlieb AR: Hypercholesterolemia: a determinant of renal function loss and deaths in IDDM patients with nephropathy. Kidney Int 45:S125–S131, 1994
    
12. Krolewski AS, Fogarty DG, Warram JH: Hypertension and nephropathy in diabetes mellitus: what is inherited and what is acquired? Diabetes Res Clin Pract 39 (Suppl.):S1–S14, 1998
    
13. Parving H-H: Impact of blood pressure and antihypertensive treatment on incipient and overt nephropathy, retinopathy, and endothelial permeability in diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 14:260–269, 1991[Abstract]
    
14. Forrest KY-Z, Maser RE, Pambianco G, Portuese EI, Orchard TJ: Hypertension as a risk factor for diabetic neuropathy: a prospective study. Diabetes 46:665–670, 1997[Abstract]
    
15. Lloyd CE, Klein R, Maser RE, Kuller LH, Becker DJ, Orchard TJ: The progression of retinopathy over 2 years: the Pittsburgh epidemiology of diabetes complications (EDC) study. J Diabetes Complications 9:140–148, 1995[Medline]
    
16. Klein R, Klein BEK, Moss SE, Davis MD, DeMets DL: The Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy. Ophthalmology 94:1389–1400, 1987[Medline]
    
17. Borch-Johnsen K, Kreiner S: Proteinuria: value as predictor of cardiovascular mortality in insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. BMJ 294:1651–1654, 1987
    
18. Forrest KY-Z, Becker DJ, Kuller LH, Wolfson SK, Orchard TJ: Are predictors of coronary heart disease and lower-extremity arterial disease in type 1 diabetes the same? A prospective study. Atherosclerosis 148:159–169, 2000[Medline]
    
19. Orchard TJ, Dorman JS, Maser RE, Becker DJ, Ellis D, LaPorte RE, Kuller LH, Wolfson S, Drash AL: Factors associated with the avoidance of severe complications after 25 years of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study. I. Diabetes Care 13:741–747, 1990[Abstract]
    
20. Orchard TJ, Dorman JS, Maser RE, Becker DJ, Drash AL, Ellis D, LaPorte RE, Kuller LH: The prevalence of complications in insulin dependent diabetes mellitus by sex and duration: Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study. II. Diabetes 39:1116–1124, 1990[Abstract]
    
21. Borhani NO, Kass EH, Langford HG, Payne GH, Remington RD, Stamler J: The hypertension detection and follow-up program. Prev Med 5:207–215, 1976[Medline]
    
22. Warnick GR, Albers JJ: Heparin-Mn2+ quantitation of high density lipoprotein cholesterol: an ultrafiltration procedure for lipemic samples. Clin Chem 24:900–904, 1978[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
23. National Institutes of Health, Department of Health: Lipid Research Clinics Program, 1975. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975, p. 75–628
    
24. Allain CC, Poon LS, Chan CSG, Richmond W, Fu PC: Enzymatic determination of total serum cholesterol. Clin Chem 20:470–475, 1974[Abstract]
    
25. Bucolo G, David H: Quantitative determination of serum triglycerides by the use of enzymes. Clin Chem 19:476–482, 1973[Abstract]
    
26. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS: Estimation of the concentration of low density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem 18:499–502, 1972[Abstract]
    
27. Ellis D, Buffone GJ: New approach to evaluation of proteinuric states. Clin Chem 23:666–670, 1977
    
28. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group: Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Manual of Operations (93-183382). Springfield, VA, Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 1993
    
29. Bergstrom RW, Leonetti DS, Newell-Morris LL, Shuman WP, Wahl PW, Fujimoto WY: Association of plasma triglyceride and C-peptide with coronary heart disease in Japanese-American men with a high prevalence of glucose intolerance. Diabetologia 33:489–496, 1990[Medline]
    
30. Maser RE, Neilson VK, Bass EB, Manjoo Q, Dorman JS, Kelsey SF, Becker DJ, Orchard TJ: Measuring diabetic neuropathy: an assessment and comparison of a clinical examination and quantitative sensory testing. Diabetes Care 12:270–275, 1989[Abstract]
    
31. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group: The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 329:977–986, 1993[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
32. Lloyd CE, Becker DJ, Ellis D, Orchard TJ: Incidence of complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a survival analysis. Am J Epidemiol 143:431–441, 1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
33. Koivisto VA, Stevens LK, Mattock M, Ebeling P, Muggeo M, Stephenson J, Idzior-Walus B, The EURODIAB IDDM Complications Study Group: Cardiovascular disease and its risk factors in IDDM in Europe. Diabetes Care 19:689–697, 1996[Abstract]
    
34. Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Research Group: The effect of intensive diabetes treatment on carotid artery wall thickness in the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications. Diabetes 48:383–390, 1999[Abstract]
    
35. Fried L, Orchard T, Kasiske B: Effect of lipid reduction on the progression of renal disease: a meta-analysis. Kidney Int 59:260–269, 2001[Medline]
    
36. Fried L, Forrest K, Ellis D, Chang Y, Silvers N, Orchard T: Lipid modulation in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: effect on microvascular outcomes. J Diab Compl 15, 2001. In press.
    
37. Orchard TJ, Forrest KY-Z, Ellis D, Becker DJ: Cumulative glycemic exposure and microvascular complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med 157:1851–1856, 1997[Abstract]
    

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R Peter, A Cox, and M Evans Management of diabetes in cardiovascular patients Heart, March 1, 2008; 94(3): 369 - 375. [Full Text] [PDF]

				American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes--2008 Diabetes Care, January 1, 2008; 31(Supplement_1): S12 - S54. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Shankar, R. Klein, B. E.K. Klein, F. J. Nieto, and S. E. Moss Relationship Between Low-Normal Blood Pressure and Kidney Disease in Type 1 Diabetes Hypertension, January 1, 2007; 49(1): 48 - 54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R.-E. W. Kavey, V. Allada, S. R. Daniels, L. L. Hayman, B. W. McCrindle, J. W. Newburger, R. S. Parekh, and J. Steinberger Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in High-Risk Pediatric Patients: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science; the Councils on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, Epidemiology and Prevention, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism, High Blood Pressure Research, Cardiovascular Nursing, and the Kidney in Heart Disease; and the Interdisciplinary Working Group on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research: Endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics Circulation, December 12, 2006; 114(24): 2710 - 2738. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Prepared by: British Cardiac Society, British Hype JBS 2: Joint British Societies' guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice Heart, December 1, 2005; 91(suppl_5): v1 - v52. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Libby, D. M. Nathan, K. Abraham, J. D. Brunzell, J. E. Fradkin, S. M. Haffner, W. Hsueh, M. Rewers, B. T. Roberts, P. J. Savage, et al. Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Working Group on Cardiovascular Complications of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Circulation, June 28, 2005; 111(25): 3489 - 3493. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Surveillance and Treatment for CVD in Children With Diabetes DOC News, May 1, 2005; 2(5): 5 - 12. [Full Text]

				R. P. Wadwa, G. L. Kinney, D. M. Maahs, J. Snell-Bergeon, J. E. Hokanson, S. K. Garg, R. H. Eckel, and M. Rewers Awareness and Treatment of Dyslipidemia in Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Diabetes Care, May 1, 2005; 28(5): 1051 - 1056. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Zgibor, R. R. Wilson, and T. J. Orchard Has Control of Hypercholesterolemia and Hypertension in Type 1 Diabetes Improved Over Time? Diabetes Care, March 1, 2005; 28(3): 521 - 526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Silverstein, G. Klingensmith, K. Copeland, L. Plotnick, F. Kaufman, L. Laffel, L. Deeb, M. Grey, B. Anderson, L. A. Holzmeister, et al. Care of Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: A statement of the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Care, January 1, 2005; 28(1): 186 - 212. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Haller, M. Samyn, W. W. Nichols, T. Brusko, C. Wasserfall, R. F. Schwartz, M. Atkinson, J. J. Shuster, G. L. Pierce, and J. H. Silverstein Radial Artery Tonometry Demonstrates Arterial Stiffness in Children With Type 1 Diabetes Diabetes Care, December 1, 2004; 27(12): 2911 - 2917. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				American Diabetes Association Management of Dyslipidemia in Children and Adolescents With Diabetes Diabetes Care, July 1, 2003; 26(7): 2194 - 2197. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. L. Caramori, Y. Kim, C. Huang, A. J. Fish, S. S. Rich, M. E. Miller, G. Russell, and M. Mauer Cellular Basis of Diabetic Nephropathy: 1. Study Design and Renal Structural-Functional Relationships in Patients With Long-Standing Type 1 Diabetes Diabetes, February 1, 2002; 51(2): 506 - 513. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract 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 Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Orchard, T. J. Articles by Becker, D. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Orchard, T. J. Articles by Becker, D. J. Social Bookmarking                What's this?