Search

Importance: High concordance in diabetic retinopathy (DR) outcomes between 7-field (7F) and ultra-widefield (UWF) images would allow for combining longitudinal assessments based on the 2 modalities both in clinical studies and clinical care., Objective: To compare 7F and UWF imaging with regard to DR severity and the associations of DR severity with risk factors, such as hemoglobin A1c, age, diabetes duration, and sex., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study describes the outcomes of the randomized clinical Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and its subsequent observational study, the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study. Of the 1441 participants with type 1 diabetes in the DCCT, 1375 were enrolled in the EDIC study. Of the 1171 participants who were active between March 2019 and December 2021, 200° UWF color imaging and 7F fundus photographs were obtained for 785 participants once at the same visit. Central graders assessed 7F-UWF with a 7F template masking the retinal periphery and the full UWF image (UWF-global). Data were analyzed from January 2022 to March 2023., Exposures: Hemoglobin A1c was assessed quarterly during the DCCT and annually during the EDIC study using high-performance liquid chromatography., Main Outcomes and Measures: Retinopathy was determined independently for all imaging as mild, moderate, or severe nonproliferative DR (SNPDR) using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) grading scale for the 7F images and the global ETDRS grading scale for the UWF images. Panretinal and focal photocoagulation were self-reported or based on scarring location and pattern observed during grading. Proliferative DR (PDR) was defined by observed neovascularization or evidence of panretinal photocoagulation., Results: Among the 785 participants included in this study, 420 (53%) were male and 365 (47%) were female. The mean (SD) age was 61 (7) years. DR grading between UWF-7F and 7F imaging was correlated for all outcomes, including for severe outcomes, such as SNPDR (κ, 0.73; concordance, 96%), PDR (κ, 0.74; concordance, 97%), scatter photocoagulation (κ, 0.97; concordance, 99%), and focal photocoagulation (κ, 0.71; concordance, 98%). Most DR severity scores were within 1 step (1410 of 1529 [92%]), and 3% (51 of 1529) were more than 2 steps apart (κ, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.42-0.49; weighted κ, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.67) on the ETDRS severity scale. DR severity assessed within the UWF-global area was higher compared to 7F (median [IQR] UWF-global score, 3 [2-3] vs median 7F level score, 2.0 [1-3]; P < .001), although the 2 modalities were correlated (1225 of 1508 [81%] 1-step agreement; weighted κ, 0.41)., Conclusions and Relevance: Standard ETDRS 7F and UWF evaluations of DR were comparable for ETDRS severity levels as previously reported by Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Retina Network reports. In addition, these evaluations of DR were comparable for DCCT/EDIT study outcomes and major study conclusions, suggesting that use of UWF imaging is not likely to introduce relevant measurement biases in future longitudinal studies., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00360815.

Importance: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is the leading cause of kidney disease in the US. It is not known whether glucose-lowering medications differentially affect kidney function., Objective: To evaluate kidney outcomes in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness (GRADE) trial comparing 4 classes of glucose-lowering medications added to metformin for glycemic management in individuals with T2D., Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted at 36 sites across the US. Participants included adults with T2D for less than 10 years, a hemoglobin A1c level between 6.8% and 8.5%, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than or equal to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 who were receiving metformin treatment. A total of 5047 participants were enrolled between July 8, 2013, and August 11, 2017, and followed up for a mean of 5.0 years (range, 0-7.6 years). Data were analyzed from February 21, 2022, to March 27, 2023., Interventions: Addition of insulin glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, or sitagliptin to metformin, with the medication combination continued until the HbA1c was greater than 7.5%; thereafter, insulin was added to maintain glycemic control., Main Outcomes and Measures: Chronic eGFR slope (change in eGFR between year 1 and trial end) and a composite kidney disease progression outcome (albuminuria, dialysis, transplant, or death due to kidney disease). Secondary outcomes included incident eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, 40% decrease in eGFR to less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, doubling of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) to 30 mg/g or greater, and progression of Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stage. Analyses were intention-to-treat., Results: Of the 5047 participants, 3210 (63.6%) were men. Baseline characteristics were mean (SD) age 57.2 (10.0) years; HbA1c 7.5% (0.5%); diabetes duration, 4.2 (2.7) years; body mass index, 34.3 (6.8); blood pressure 128.3/77.3 (14.7/9.9) mm Hg; eGFR 94.9 (16.8) mL/min/1.73 m2; and median UACR, 6.4 (IQR 3.1-16.9) mg/g; 2933 (58.1%) were treated with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors. Mean chronic eGFR slope was -2.03 (95% CI, -2.20 to -1.86) mL/min/1.73 m2 per year for patients receiving sitagliptin; glimepiride, -1.92 (95% CI, -2.08 to -1.75) mL/min/1.73 m2 per year; liraglutide, -2.08 (95% CI, -2.26 to -1.90) mL/min/1.73 m2 per year; and insulin glargine, -2.02 (95% CI, -2.19 to -1.84) mL/min/1.73 m2 per year (P = .61). Mean composite kidney disease progression occurred in 135 (10.6%) patients receiving sitagliptin; glimepiride, 155 (12.4%); liraglutide, 152 (12.0%); and insulin glargine, 150 (11.9%) (P = .56). Most of the composite outcome was attributable to albuminuria progression (98.4%). There were no significant differences by treatment assignment in secondary outcomes. There were no adverse kidney events attributable to medication assignment., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, among people with T2D and predominantly free of kidney disease at baseline, no significant differences in kidney outcomes were observed during 5 years of follow-up when a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, sulfonylurea, glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonist, or basal insulin was added to metformin for glycemic control., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01794143.

Importance: Little is known about structural brain changes in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and whether there are early manifestations of a neurodegenerative condition like Alzheimer disease (AD) or evidence of premature brain aging., Objective: To evaluate neuroimaging markers of brain age and AD-like atrophy in participants with T1D in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study, identify which brain regions are associated with the greatest changes in patients with T1D, and assess the association between cognition and brain aging indices., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study leveraged data collected during the combined DCCT (randomized clinical trial, 1983-1993) and EDIC (observational study, 1994 to present) studies at 27 clinical centers in the US and Canada. A total of 416 eligible EDIC participants and 99 demographically similar adults without diabetes were enrolled in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ancillary study, which reports cross-sectional data collected in 2018 to 2019 and relates it to factors measured longitudinally in DCCT/EDIC. Data analyses were performed between July 2020 and April 2022., Exposure: T1D diagnosis., Main Outcomes and Measures: Psychomotor and mental efficiency were evaluated using verbal fluency, digit symbol substitution test, trail making part B, and the grooved pegboard. Immediate memory scores were derived from the logical memory subtest of the Wechsler memory scale and the Wechsler digit symbol substitution test. MRI and machine learning indices were calculated to predict brain age and quantify AD-like atrophy., Results: This study included 416 EDIC participants with a median (range) age of 60 (44-74) years (87 of 416 [21%] were older than 65 years) and a median (range) diabetes duration of 37 (30-51) years. EDIC participants had consistently higher brain age values compared with controls without diabetes, indicative of approximately 6 additional years of brain aging (EDIC participants: β, 6.16; SE, 0.71; control participants: β, 1.04; SE, 0.04; P < .001). In contrast, AD regional atrophy was comparable between the 2 groups. Regions with atrophy in EDIC participants vs controls were observed mainly in the bilateral thalamus and putamen. Greater brain age was associated with lower psychomotor and mental efficiency among EDIC participants (β, -0.04; SE, 0.01; P < .001), but not among controls., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest an increase in brain aging among individuals with T1D without any early signs of AD-related neurodegeneration. These increases were associated with reduced cognitive performance, but overall, the abnormal patterns seen in this sample were modest, even after a mean of 38 years with T1D.

Importance: The lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among women compared with men in the general population may be diminished among those with diabetes., Objective: To evaluate cardiometabolic risk factors and their management in association with CVD events in women vs men with type 1 diabetes enrolled in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) study., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data obtained during the combined DCCT (randomized clinical trial, conducted 1983-1993) and EDIC (observational study, conducted 1994 to present) studies through April 30, 2018 (mean [SD] follow-up, 28.8 [5.8] years), at 27 clinical centers in the US and Canada. Data analyses were performed between July 2021 and April 2022., Exposure: During the DCCT phase, patients were randomized to intensive vs conventional diabetes therapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Cardiometabolic risk factors and CVD events were assessed via detailed medical history and focused physical examinations. Blood and urine samples were assayed centrally. CVD events were adjudicated by a review committee. Linear mixed models and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated sex differences in cardiometabolic risk factors and CVD risk over follow-up., Results: A total of 1441 participants with type 1 diabetes (mean [SD] age at DCCT baseline, 26.8 [7.1] years; 761 [52.8%] men; 1390 [96.5%] non-Hispanic White) were included. Over the duration of the study, compared with men, women had significantly lower body mass index (BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared; β = -0.43 [SE, 0.16]; P = .006), waist circumference (β = -10.56 cm [SE, 0.52 cm]; P < .001), blood pressure (systolic: β = -5.77 mm Hg [SE, 0.35 mm Hg]; P < .001; diastolic: β = -3.23 mm Hg [SE, 0.26 mm Hg]; P < .001), and triglyceride levels (β = -10.10 mg/dL [SE, 1.98 mg/dL]; P < .001); higher HDL cholesterol levels (β = 9.36 mg/dL [SE, 0.57 mg/dL]; P < .001); and similar LDL cholesterol levels (β = -0.76 mg/dL [SE, 1.22 mg/dL]; P = .53). Women, compared with men, achieved recommended targets more frequently for blood pressure (ie, <130/80 mm Hg: 90.0% vs 77.4%; P < .001) and triglycerides (ie, <150 mg/dL: 97.3% vs 90.5%; P < .001). However, sex-specific HDL cholesterol targets (ie, ≥50 mg/dL for women, ≥40 mg/dL for men) were achieved less often (74.3% vs 86.6%; P < .001) and cardioprotective medications were used less frequently in women than men (ie, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker: 29.6% [95% CI, 25.7%-33.9%] vs 40.0% [95% CI, 36.1%-44.0%]; P = .001; lipid-lowering medication: 25.3% [95% CI, 22.1%-28.7%] vs 39.6% [95% CI, 36.1%-43.2%]; P < .001). Women also had significantly higher pulse rates (mean [SD], 75.2 [6.8] beats per minute vs 71.8 [6.9] beats per minute; P < .001) and hemoglobin A1c levels (mean [SD], 8.3% [1.0%] vs 8.1% [1.0%]; P = .01) and achieved targets for tighter glycemic control less often than men (ie, hemoglobin A1c <7%: 11.2% [95% CI, 9.3%-13.3%] vs 14.0% [95% CI, 12.0%-16.3%]; P = .03)., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that despite a more favorable cardiometabolic risk factor profile, women with type 1 diabetes did not have a significantly lower CVD event burden than men, suggesting a greater clinical impact of cardiometabolic risk factors in women vs men with diabetes. These findings call for conscientious optimization of the control of CVD risk factors in women with type 1 diabetes.