In order to improve the treatment of diabetic patients, patients and healthcare professionals should work together. It takes into account all steps from the time of the initial comprehensive medical assessment of the condition, through all subsequent consultations and monitoring, as well as during the assessment of complications and management of concomitant diseases (American Diabetes Association, 2021b). The American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) Professional Practice Committee’s Multidisciplinary Expert Committee on Professional Practice updates the ADA’4s “Standards of Medical Care for Diabetes Mellitus” annually (American Diabetes Association, 2021a). This report also includes a section devoted to glycemic control in diabetes treatment.
Glycemic control is an important factor in the evolution of diabetes, as well as the risk of complications and other problems. Adequate control is a key responsibility shared by both the doctor and the patient, whose direct contribution is following the recommendations of the attending physician and practicing effective diabetic self-management (Imran et al., 2018). Patients’ blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin levels are self-monitored to assess the success and safety of their diabetic treatment plan (Singh and Khunti, 2020). Checking blood glucose levels is also important for establishing the effectiveness and safety of treatment in specific subgroups of patients with type 1 diabetes and in individual people with type 2 diabetes (Kant et al., 2019).
A comprehensive risk assessment requires strict glycemic control, serving as the first indication for further assessment. Recommendations for glycemic control vary from country to country. For example, in the United States it is ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%), which is considered safe and affordable (American Diabetes Association, 2021b). If a person is taking a drug that causes hypoglycemia or requires more than one drug, the target is from 53 to 64 mmol/mol (7-8%) (American Diabetes Association, 2021b). In Canada, it is less than 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) for people with type 2 diabetes to reduce the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and retinopathy (Zohodne, 2018). If a person has a low risk of hypoglycemia, then it is < 53 mmol / mol (7%), and in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes – from 54 to 70 mmol /mol (7.1-8.5%) (Zohodne, 2018).
Intensive blood-glucose management has been shown to have a long-term favorable effect on the prevention and progression of cardiovascular illnesses, as well as death from them, on patients with type 1 diabetes (Huang et al., 2017). In diabetes, better glycaemic management lowers cholesterol and triglyceride levels by lowering circulating low-density lipoproteins and enhancing LDL catabolism by reducing glycation (Glovaci, Fan, Wong, 2019). In type 1 diabetes, increases in BMI were not shown to be a substantial risk factor for cardiovascular disease or death (Singh and Khunti, 2020). Still, excessive weight gain was linked to delayed increases in cardiovascular events, countering the advantages of strict glycaemic control. Despite the fact that the link between type 1 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases is widely documented, the underlying processes are still unknown, and the necessity for more aggressive therapy is frequently disregarded.
Strict blood glucose management has been advised as a treatment strategy to limit the occurrence of vascular complications. In individuals with type 2 diabetes, however, strict glucose management had no impact on the risk of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (Henning, 2018). The impact of strict glucose management on microvascular events was uncertain (Haghighatpanah et al., 2018). On the incidence of nephropathy and other microvascular outcomes, there is no significant influence (Heintjes, 2019). In general, a strict glucose management approach lowers the relative risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction and some microvascular events but not all-cause mortality or cardiovascular disease.
Intensive glycaemic management has proven to be an effective method of avoiding diabetic neuropathy consequences (Lonardo et al., 2018). In individuals with type 2 diabetes, strict glycemic control is sometimes seen as a key method for preventing chronic problems. Experts interpreted the results of large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as confirmation that tight glycemic control prevented microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (Ceriello, Monnier and Owens, 2019). The findings show that strict glycemic control had no significant influence on the risk of ESRD, renal mortality, blindness, or clinical neuropathy, with a very low (6%) incidence of all microvascular events and no obvious HbA1c threshold effect on microvascular abnormalities (Forbes and Fortheringham, 2017). This shows that strict glycemic control has little effect on stroke risk, while the effect on amputations is uncertain (Gunst, De Bruyn and Van den Berghe, 2019). The British Prospective Diabetes Study Group and the Kumamoto Study have both validated intensive glucose control. Each trial looked at individuals with type 2 diabetes, and the findings were positive, with glycated hemoglobin levels dropping by a few percentage points in both cases (Henning, 2018). The UKPDS was a significant research that found that tight glycemic control significantly reduced the chance of a composite diabetes-related outcome (Heintjes et al., 2019). VADT was also found to lower the probability of albuminuria progression, but had no influence on key microvascular outcomes (Henning, 2018).
However, the debate for and against tight glucose control is still ongoing, with recent developments against it. For instance, the “Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk of Diabetes” (ACCORD) research, which included patients with cardiovascular risk, was the first to reveal that intensive care was associated with an increased risk of death, and the study was quickly ended (Lonardo et al., 2018). Patients with a high cardiovascular risk were also involved in the “Action in Diabetes and Vascular Diseases” (ADVANCE) research. The most important component in this outcome was a 21% reduction in the probability of nephropathy without impacting the other macrovascular outcomes (Bertoluci and Rocha, 2017). There was no difference in mortality between the groups, unlike ACCORD. These findings, however, revealed that rigorous therapy may not be the best option for elderly patients who are at higher risk.
In addition, studies have been conducted to determine the long-term prospects for rigorous glucose management. In the intensive care group, a ten-year follow-up demonstrated a substantial (17%) reduction in the time it took to have the first major cardiovascular event (International Hypoglycaemia Study Group, 2019). When disparities in HbA1c levels between the two groups did not remain after 15 years of follow-up, this decline did not occur (De Boer et al., 2017). These findings suggest that long-term glycemic control in older individuals yields worse macrovascular outcomes, and that glycemic control deteriorates with age.
Self-management of blood glucose levels is also an integral part of successful treatment. This allows patients to assess their own reaction to therapy as well as their progress toward their glycemic targets (American Diabetes Association, 2021c). The findings of self-monitoring blood glucose levels can be a valuable tool for developing/correcting diet and physical activity programs, preventing hypoglycemia, and adjusting medicine dosages within the context of integrated diabetes treatment (Ortiz, 2017). Because the accuracy of self-monitoring is dependent on the method used and the patient’s abilities, it’s critical to assess each patient’s approach for measuring blood glucose levels at the start and at regular intervals (Gunst and Van den Berghe, 2019). Patients should be taught how to employ self-control to regulate their food consumption, exercise, and medication therapy while keeping the goals in mind (Khunti et al., 2018). To avoid over-monitoring of blood glucose levels, the requirement for self-monitoring and its frequency should be assessed at each patient appointment.
The amount of hemoglobin indicates the average glycose levels over the past months and has a strong predictive value in terms of diabetic complications (Mauricio et al., 2017). As a result, this study should be conducted on a frequent basis in all diabetic patients, both at the initial assessment and as part of ongoing treatment (Murakami et al., 2020). Of course, the frequency of the analysis should be determined by the unique clinical circumstances, treatment regimen, and doctor’s assessment. For individuals with type 2 diabetes with stable glycose level, an analysis once a year may be adequate, whereas unstable or more intensively controlled patients may require more frequent examination (Fisher and Tahrani, 2017). Furthermore, analyzing the glycosylated hemoglobin level in the blood immediately at the point of medical care allows for the application of treatment modifications earlier.
Individuals with an increased cardiovascular risk, such as those with a history of premature cardiovascular disease, or other risk factors (smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes,), or comorbidities associated with an increased risk, usually undergo a comprehensive cardiovascular risk assessment (Kant et al., 2019). Risk assessment mechanisms, such as risk scoring charts, should be used in the overall risk assessment to identify individuals who are at risk or extremely high risk for cardiovascular disease. Various risk assessments, such as the Framingham score, the Munster Prospective Cardiovascular Study (PROCAM), and others, have been created (Mauricio et al., 2017).
Various tables of variables are used across the world for type 2 diabetes. For example, The Risk Assessment of the UK Diabetes Prospective Study (UKPDS) or the Swedish National Diabetes Registry (NDR) (Rooney et al., 2021). It has been demonstrated that these representations have a high level of sensitivity in patients. For type 1 diabetes, many risk mechanisms have been established. The model may be influenced by characteristics such as diabetes duration, systolic blood pressure, lipids, glycated hemoglobin, and smoking (Kant et al., 2019). Age, gender, diabetes duration, glycated hemoglobin, blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, estimated glomerular filtration rate, smoking, and exercise, for example, have all been included in a Steno risk score (Singh and Khunti, 2020). Coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and heart failure were all included in this risk score, which was created as a primary preventive model for the first fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular event (Henning, 2018).
The most prominent independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease is age. In both men and women, the rise in cardiovascular risk is constant and gradual. However, each sex has a significant chance of acquiring cardiovascular disease at a specific age. According to several studies, it is around 48 years for men and 52 years for women (Bertoluci and Rocha, 2017).
Other key variables include hypertension. Hypertension is a well-known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, particularly stroke-related mortality (Lonardo et al., 2018). It is the leading cause of coronary heart disease in both men and women of any age. The most significant factor for the microvascular problems in diabetes mellitus types 1 and 2 is hypertension (Yamazaki, Hitomi, and Nishiyama, 2018). Hypertension is frequently caused by diabetic kidney injury in people with type 1 diabetes, while type 2 diabetes frequently coexists with other cardiovascular disease risk factors.
Diabetes duration is an important factor of risk assessment, especially in terms of patient’s age. Patients who suffered from diabetes for more than ten years may be regarded to be at a higher risk (Dal Canto et al., 2019). The age at which diabetes begins and the length of time are interconnected. However, regardless of how long the patient had diabetes, getting a diagnosis early might put him at a higher risk (Bertoluci and Rocha, 2017). It is also crucial to consider how metabolic syndrome affects the development of cardiovascular risk. This is frequently linked to poor cardiovascular results and a higher death rate (Bertoluci and Rocha, 2017). Special components of metabolic syndrome, such as blood pressure, maybe the main components of cardiovascular risks (Ceriello, Monnier, and Owens, 2019). There was, however, an increase in the likelihood of metabolic syndrome in the presence of diabetes, independent of the cause of the condition.
Estimates of diabetes risk can be used for a number of objectives, which is crucial to consider when evaluating their validity. The predictive efficacy of diabetes risk markers created for people of various ethnic backgrounds differs greatly. In prospective studies, however, there are many controversies and unclear causal links (American Diabetes Association, 2021a). HbA1c or blood glucose levels remain a critical indicator for measuring the risk of cardiovascular disease in both diabetic patients and the general population, and diabetes-related measures should take these factors into consideration (Dal Canto et al., 2019) It may also be used to measure glycemic balance by identifying impaired fasting glucose levels and impaired glucose tolerance (Glovaci, Fan, and Wong, 2019). Furthermore, while creating and measuring the risk of cardiovascular disease in diabetic patients, it is vital to include the diabetes treatment circumstances as well as ethnic group.
Reference List
Abell, B., Glasziou, P., and Hoffmann, T. (2017) ‘The contribution of individual exercise training components to clinical outcomes in randomised controlled trials of cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-regression,’ Sports Medicine-Open, 3(1), pp. 1-31. Web.
American Diabetes Association (2021a) 10. Cardiovascular disease and risk management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021, pp. 125-150. Web.
American Diabetes Association (2021b) 6. Glycemic targets: Standards of medical care in diabetes—2021, pp. 73-84. Web.
American Diabetes Association (2021c) Standards of medical care in diabetes—2021 abridged for primary care providers, pp. 14-43. Web.
Bertoluci, M. C., and Rocha, V. Z. (2017) ‘Cardiovascular risk assessment in patients with diabetes,’ Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, 9(1), pp. 1-13. Web.
Ceriello, A., Monnier, L., and Owens, D. (2019) ‘Glycaemic variability in diabetes: clinical and therapeutic implications,’ The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 7(3), pp. 221-230. Web.
Dal Canto, E., Ceriello, A., Ryde, L., Ferrini, M., Hansen, T., Schnell, O., Standl, E., and WJ Beulens, J. (2019) ‘Diabetes is a cardiovascular risk factor: an overview of global trends of macro and microvascular complications,’ European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 26, pp. 25-32. Web.
De Boer, I. H., Bangalore, S., Benetos, A., Davis, A. M., Michos, E. D., Muntner, P., and Bakris, G. (2017) ‘Diabetes and hypertension: a position statement by the American Diabetes Association,’ Diabetes Care, 40(9), pp. 1273-1284. Web.
Fisher, V. L., and Tahrani, A. A. (2017) ‘Cardiac autonomic neuropathy in patients with diabetes mellitus: current perspectives,’ Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy, 10, p. 419. Web.
Forbes, J. M., and Fotheringham, A. K. (2017) ‘Vascular complications in diabetes: old messages, new thoughts,’ Diabetologia, 60(11), pp. 2129-2138. Web.
Glovaci, D., Fan, W., and Wong, N. D. (2019) ‘Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease,’ Current Cardiology Reports, 21(4), pp. 1-8. Web.
Gunst, J., De Bruyn, A., and Van den Berghe, G. (2019) ‘Glucose control in the ICU’, Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, 32(2), p. 156. Web.
Haghighatpanah, M., Nejad, A. S. M., Haghighatpanah, M., Thunga, G., and Mallayasamy, S. (2018) ‘Factors that correlate with poor glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with complications’, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, 9(4), p. 167. Web.
Heintjes, E. M., Houben, E., Beekman-Hendriks, W. L., Lighaam, E., Cremers, S. M., Penning-van Beest, F. J. A., and Herings, R. M. C. (2019) ‘Trends in mortality, cardiovascular complications, and risk factors in type 2 diabetes’. Neth J Med, 77(9), pp. 317-329. Web.
Henning, R. J. (2018) ‘Type-2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease’, Future Cardiology, 14(6), pp. 491-509. https://doi.org/10.2217/fca-2018-0045
Huang, D., Refaat, M., Mohammedi, K., Jayyousi, A., Al Suwaidi, J., and Abi Khalil, C. (2017) ‘Macrovascular complications in patients with diabetes and prediabetes,’ BioMed Research International, 2017. Web.
International Hypoglycaemia Study Group (2019) ‘Hypoglycaemia, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in diabetes: epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management.’ The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 7 (5), pp. 385-396. Web.
Imran, S. A., Agarwal, G., Bajaj, H. S., and Ross, S. (2018) ‘Targets for Glycemic Control,’ Canadian Journal of Diabetes, 42, pp. 42–46. Web.
Kant, R., Munir, K. M., Kaur, A., and Verma, V. (2019) ‘Prevention of macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: review of cardiovascular safety and efficacy of newer diabetes medications’, World Journal of Diabetes, 10(6), p. 324. Web.
Khunti, K., Ceriello, A., Cos, X., and De Block, C. (2018). ‘Achievement of guideline targets for blood pressure, lipid, and glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis’, Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 137, pp. 137-148. Web.
Liu, G., Li, Y., Hu, Y., Zong, G., Li, S., Rimm, E. B., and Sun, Q. (2018) ‘Influence of lifestyle on incident cardiovascular disease and mortality in patients with diabetes mellitus,’ Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 71(25), pp. 2867-2876. Web.
Lonardo, A., Nascimbeni, F., Mantovani, A., and Targher, G. (2018) ‘Hypertension, diabetes, atherosclerosis and NASH: cause or consequence?’, Journal of Hepatology, 68(2), pp. 335-352. Web.
Maiorino, M. I., Signoriello, S., Maio, A., Chiodini, P., Bellastella, G., Scappaticcio, L., and Esposito, K. (2020) ‘Effects of continuous glucose monitoring on metrics of glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,’ Diabetes Care, 43(5), pp. 1146-1156. Web.
Mauricio, D., Meneghini, L., Seufert, J., Liao, L., Wang, H., Tong, L., and Khunti, K. (2017) ‘Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia burden in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating basal insulin in Europe and the USA’, Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 19(8), pp. 1155-1164. Web.
Murakami, H., Yasui‐Furukori, N., Otaka, H., Nakayama, H., Murabayashi, M., Mizushiri, S., and Daimon, M. (2020) ‘Coping styles associated with glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus’, Journal of Diabetes Investigation, 11(5), pp. 1215-1221. Web.
Ortiz, M. R. (2017) ‘Hypoglycemia in diabetes,’ Nursing Clinics, 52(4), pp. 565-574. Web.
Pedersen, B. K. (2017) ‘Anti‐inflammatory effects of exercise: role in diabetes and cardiovascular disease,’ European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 47(8), pp. 600-611. Web.
Petrie, J. R., Guzik, T. J., and Touyz, R. M. (2018) ‘Diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease: clinical insights and vascular mechanisms,’ Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 34(5), pp. 575-584. Web.
Rooney, M. R., Tang, O., Tcheugui, J. B. E., Lutsey, P. L., Grams, M. E., Windham, B. G., and Selvin, E. (2021) ‘American Diabetes Association Framework for Glycemic Control in Older Adults: implications for Risk of Hospitalization and Mortality,’ Diabetes Care, 24(5), pp. 66-75. Web.
Roy, K., Iqbal, S., Gadag, V., and Bavington, B. (2020) ‘Relationship between psychosocial factors and glucose control in adults with type 2 diabetes’. Canadian Journal of Diabetes, 44(7), pp. 636-642. Web.
Singh, A. K., and Khunti, K. (2020) ‘Assessment of risk, severity, mortality, glycemic control and antidiabetic agents in patients with diabetes and COVID-19: a narrative review’, Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 165, pp. 108-126. Web.
Strain, W. D., and Paldánius, P. M. (2018) ‘Diabetes, cardiovascular disease and the microcirculation,’ Cardiovascular Diabetology, 17(1), pp. 1-10. Web.
Vasheghani, M., Sarvghadi, F., and Beyranvand, M. R. (2019) ‘The association between cardiac autonomic neuropathy and diabetes control,’ Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy, 12, p. 581. Web.
Wurst, R., Kinkel, S., Lin, J., Goehner, W., and Fuchs, R. (2019) ‘Promoting physical activity through a psychological group intervention in cardiac rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial,’ Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 42(6), pp. 1104-1116. Web.
Yamazaki, D., Hitomi, H., and Nishiyama, A. (2018) ‘Hypertension with diabetes mellitus complications,’ Hypertension Research, 41(3), pp. 147-156. Web.
Zochodne, M. D. (2018). Diabetes Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee. Can J Diabetes, 42, S217-S221. Web.