4.7 Editorial Material

Up and down waves of glycemic control and lower-extremity amputation in diabetes

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR DIABETOLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12933-021-01325-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Associazione Salute con Stile, Naples, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetes is strongly associated with lower extremity amputations (LEA), and the relaxation of glycemic targets may lead to an increase in LEA. Studies have shown that glycemic control can reduce the incidence of LEA, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists may potentially lower the risk of LEA in diabetic patients.
Lower extremity amputations (LEA) are associated with a high mortality and medical expenditure. Diabetes accounts for 45% to 70% of LEA and is one of the most potent risk factors for peripheral artery diseases (PAD). The existence of a link between the recent relaxation of glycemic targets and the resurgence of LEA is suggested from the analysis of adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2010 and 2015, when diabetes-related LEA increased by more than 25% associated with a decline in glycemic control. Indeed, in the perfect wave of NHANES, including the years 2007-2010, there was the highest number of diabetic people with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and blood pressure levels at their respective targets, associated with the lowest number of LEA. Until now, the ACCORD study, testing the role of aggressive vs conventional glucose control, and the LEADER trial, evaluating the effects of liraglutide versus placebo, have shown a reduced incidence of LEA in people with type 2 diabetes. The results of ongoing clinical trials involving glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA, liraglutide or semaglutide) hopefully will tell us whether the wider use of these drugs may provide additional vascular benefits for diabetic people affected by PAD to decrease their risk of LEA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据