Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Timewarp Tuesday: Why We Need A Cardiovascular Risk Model Exclusively For Type 1 Diabetes (AGAIN!!)

As Amy Tenderich, Riva Greenberg and a few other diabetes bloggers have noted, February is American Heart Month, a time in which various organizations will call attention to cardiovascular disease (including stroke) which is our nation's No. 1 killer, and also the leading cause of death among people with diabetes (of both type 1 AND type 2).

But since this is one of my Timewarp Tuesday blog postings, I would also call your attention to a blog posting I did back on October 19, 2006 in which tried (unsuccessfully, I'm afraid) to call attention to the fact that there was still not a cardiovascular disease model that was applicable to patients with type 1 diabetes. In the past 3 1/2 years, I am very sorry to report that almost NO progress has been made in addressing the issues I called attention in my original posting ... we still don't have a cardiovascular disease risk model applicable to patients with type 1 diabetes, even though this remains the #1 killer of those of us with type 1, and yet there is evidence that existing risk models do not work for this population.

What the hell are you all doing?

I think special attention should be raised on the current leader of the NIH/NIDDK, and Dr. Griffin Rodgers, who is supposed to be representing our needs to Congress. I'd also like to reiterate my call for the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to pool their resources to pursue predictive studies on this very issue. Let's hope I'll be more effective the second time around!

Anyway, here's the content of my original post:

A Reuters article published the other day (October 17, 2006) provided some disturbing (although unsurprising) statistics which I felt were worth sharing:

The study (available at the online journal Public Library of Science) showed that elderly participants with diabetes were twice as likely to die from cardiovascular disease as non-diabetics, and that the risk was particularly high for patients who treated their disease with insulin injections. Researchers also found that participants who were taking insulin were six times more likely to die from infectious diseases or kidney failure than non-diabetic participants. Women treated with insulin had a particularly high mortality risk.

The researchers noted that their results were adjusted for factors already known to affect heart disease risk including smoking, alcohol consumption and cholesterol levels, which is indeed useful. However, their study failed to acknowledge whether they even examined whether there were any clinical differences observed between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We do know, however, that only 194 of 5,372 participants (3.3% of the cohort) with diabetes treated their condition with insulin only, so we can probably assume this tiny segment represented patients with type 1 diabetes.

Earlier this year, researchers found that cardiodvascular risk models are not predictive for patients with type 1 diabetes because risk models only exist for the general population, and patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, researchers at UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, CA reported that the cause of cardiovascular inflammation in patients with type 1 diabetes appears to be autoimmunity, not the risk factors often observed in type 2 patients, including hypertension and obesity.

The researchers noted that a major limitation of this particular study was the fact that participants on insulin may have had greater duration of diabetes since most patients with type 1 diabetes (which requires insulin treatment) are diagnosed at much younger ages than the typical type 2 patient. The editors also noted that elderly people often receive less-intensive treatment of risk factors for heart disease, such as high blood pressure and cholesterol, than younger people.

But perhaps even more important is the fact that it is probably time for resarchers to do a comprehensive cardiovascular risk prediction model for type 1 diabetes because risk factors including younger age at diabetes onset and presence of diabetes complications are not considered in the existing models. With all the money being poured into such unnecessary studies as the effects of chili consumption on postprandial glucose, insulin, and energy metabolism, or maybe lifestyle intervention associated with a lower prevalence of urinary incontinence (I kid you not, these were genuine studies published in prominent scientific and medical journals - read them for yourself using the links provided) it is about time researchers put their efforts (and our money) into something that might possibly benefit the type 1 diabetes community.

I sincerely hope that the NIH/NIDDK, JDRF and others are reading my recommendations on what types of studies they should be pursuing!

1 comment:

Araby62 (a.k.a. Kathy) said...

I just had a consultation with a very well-respected, highly experienced cardiologist here in Chicago who actually teaches at one of the university hospitals here...and HE could not tell me exactly what my risk was. He did say that it would be nice to have data on people like us because he is frustrated by the lack of treatment options for some things (like niacin for low HDL--which makes blood sugars go up, argh). The only thing he could go on was really my family history. There has got to be a better way.