4.3 Article

Slightly elevated blood pressure as well as poor metabolic control are risk factors for the progression of retinopathy in early-onset Japanese type 2 diabetes

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages 281-287

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1056-8727(00)00114-8

Keywords

early-onset type 2 diabetes; proliferative diabetic retinopathy; mean HbA(1c); diastolic blood pressure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Not a few patients in Japan with early-onset type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes become blind due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). However, the risk factors are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for background diabetic retinopathy (BDR) and PDR by following 394 Japanese patients with early-onset type 2 diabetes diagnosed before 30 years of age (mean age 27, mean blood pressure at entry 116/73 mm Hg). Of the 322 patients who were free of diabetic retinopathy at entry, 88 developed BDR, giving an incidence of 48.1 (95% CI 39.0-59.2)/1000 person-years. Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed mean HbA(1c) and duration of diabetes to be significant predictors of development of BDR. Of the 160 patients with BDR, i.e., the 72 patients who had BDR at entry and the 88 who developed BDR during the follow-up, 50 developed PDR, giving an incidence of 57.7 (95% CI 55.5-60.0)/1000 person-years. Cox proportional hazard analysis indicated mean HbA(1c) and diastolic blood pressure to be significant predictors of the progression from BDR to PDR. In conclusion, in early-onset Japanese type 2 diabetic patients, the rates of both development of BDR and of progression from BDR to PDR appear to be potentially high. Not only lifetime exposure to glycemia but also a slightly elevated blood pressure level is an important risk factor for progression to PDR. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available