Effect of an intensified multifactorial intervention on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in type 2 diabetes (J-DOIT3): an open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background Limited evidence suggests that multifactorial interventions for control of glucose, blood pressure, and lipids reduce macrovascular complications and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, safe and effective treatment targets for these risk factors have not been determined for such interventions. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel-group trial, undertaken at 81 clinical sites in Japan, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients with type 2 diabetes aged 45-69 years with hypertension, dyslipidaemia, or both, and an HbA(1c) of 6.9% (52.0 mmol/mol) or higher, to receive conventional therapy for glucose, blood pressure, and lipid control (targets: HbA(1c) < 6.9% [52.0 mmol/mol], blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg, LDL cholesterol <120 mg/dL [or 100 mg/dL in patients with a history of coronary artery disease]) or intensive therapy (HbA 1c < 6 u 2% [44 u 3 mmol/mol], blood pressure <120/75 mm Hg, LDL cholesterol <80 mg/dL [or 70 mg/dL in patients with a history of coronary artery disease]). Randomisation was done using a computer-generated, dynamic balancing method, stratified by sex, age, HbA(1c), and history of cardiovascular disease. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was occurrence of any of a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularisation (coronary artery bypass surgery, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, carotid endarterectomy, percutaneous transluminal cerebral angioplasty, and carotid artery stenting), and all-cause mortality. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT00300976. Findings Between June 16, 2006, and March 31, 2009, 2542 eligible patients were randomly assigned to intensive therapy or conventional therapy (1271 in each group) and followed up for a median of 8 u 5 years (IQR 7.3-9.0). Two patients in the intensive therapy group were found to be ineligible after randomisation and were excluded from the analyses. During the intervention period, mean HbA(1c), systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol concentrations were significantly lower in the intensive therapy group than in the conventional therapy group (6.8% [51.0 mmol/mol] vs 7.2% [55.2 mmol/mol]; 123 mm Hg vs 129 mm Hg; 71 mm Hg vs 74 mm Hg; and 85 mg/dL vs 104 mg/dL, respectively; all p<0.0001). The primary outcome occurred in 109 patients in the intensive therapy group and in 133 patients in the conventional therapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.63-1.04; p=0.094). In a posthoc breakdown of the composite outcome, frequencies of all-cause mortality (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68-1.51; p=0.95) and coronary events (myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass surgery, and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; HR 0.86, 0.58-1.27; p=0.44) did not differ between groups, but cerebrovascular events (stroke, carotid endarterectomy, percutaneous transluminal cerebral angioplasty, and carotid artery stenting) were significantly less frequent in the intensive therapy group (HR 0.42, 0.24-0.74; p=0.002). Apart from non-severe hypoglycaemia (521 [41%] patients in the intensive therapy group vs 283 [22%] in the conventional therapy group, p<0.0001) and oedema (193 [15%] vs 129 [10%], p=0.0001), the frequencies of major adverse events did not differ between groups. Interpretation Our results do not fully support the efficacy of further intensified multifactorial intervention compared with current standard care for the prevention of a composite of coronary events, cerebrovascular events, and all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, our findings suggest a potential benefit of an intensified intervention for the prevention of cerebrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes.