Context: Beta-blockers have been shown to decrease cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM); however, some components of the metabolic syndrome are worsened by some beta-blockers.

Objective: To compare the effects of beta-blockers with different pharmacological profiles on glycemic and metabolic control in participants with DM and hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade, in the context of cardiovascular risk factors.

Design, Setting, And Participants: A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial (The Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives [GEMINI]) conducted between June 1, 2001, and April 6, 2004, at 205 US sites that compared the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate on glycemic control. The 1235 participants were aged 36 to 85 years with hypertension (>130/80 mm Hg) and type 2 DM (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 6.5%-8.5%) and were receiving RAS blockers. Participants were followed up for 35 weeks.

Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive a 6.25- to 25-mg dose of carvedilol (n = 498) or 50- to 200-mg dose of metoprolol tartrate (n = 737), each twice daily. Open-label hydrochlorothiazide and a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist were added, if needed, to achieve blood pressure target.

Main Outcome Measures: Difference between groups in mean change from baseline HbA1c following 5 months of maintenance therapy. Additional prespecified comparisons included change from baseline HbA1c in individual treatment groups, treatment effect on insulin sensitivity, and microalbuminuria.

Results: The 2 groups differed in mean change in HbA1c from baseline (0.13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.22% to -0.04%; P = .004; modified intention-to-treat analysis). The mean (SD) HbA1c increased with metoprolol (0.15% [0.04%]; P<.001) but not carvedilol (0.02% [0.04%]; P = .65). Insulin sensitivity improved with carvedilol (-9.1%; P = .004) but not metoprolol (-2.0%; P = .48); the between-group difference was -7.2% (95% CI, -13.8% to -0.2%; P = .004). Blood pressure was similar between groups. Progression to microalbuminuria was less frequent with carvedilol than with metoprolol (6.4% vs 10.3%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04).

Conclusions: Both beta-blockers were well tolerated; use of carvedilol in the presence of RAS blockade did not affect glycemic control and improved some components of the metabolic syndrome relative to metoprolol in participants with DM and hypertension. The effects of the 2 beta-blockers on clinical outcomes need to be compared in long-term clinical trials.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.18.2227DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

diabetes mellitus
12
effects carvedilol
8
carvedilol metoprolol
8
type diabetes
8
cardiovascular risk
8
participants randomized
8
metoprolol tartrate
8
change baseline
8
baseline hba1c
8
participants
5

Similar Publications

Food Insecurity in Pregnancy, Receipt of Food Assistance, and Perinatal Complications.

JAMA Netw Open

January 2025

Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Pleasanton.

Importance: Food insecurity is a growing public health concern, but its association with perinatal complications remains unclear.

Objective: To examine whether food insecurity in pregnancy was associated with the risk of perinatal complications and determine whether these potential associations differed by receipt of food assistance.

Design, Setting, And Participants: This cohort study used data from a pregnancy survey conducted between June 22, 2020, and September 9, 2022, at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated health care system serving a diverse population of 4.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Importance: Understanding the interplay between diabetes risk factors and diabetes development is important to develop individual, practice, and population-level prevention strategies.

Objective: To evaluate the progression from normal and impaired fasting glucose levels to diabetes among adults.

Design, Setting, And Participants: This retrospective community-based cohort study used data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, in Olmsted County, Minnesota, on 44 992 individuals with at least 2 fasting plasma glucose (FPG) measurements from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2017.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose Of Review: To provide a narrative overview of trends and disparities in the cardiometabolic profiles of U.S. adults by synthesizing findings from nationally representative studies conducted between 1999 and 2020.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose Of Review: Evidence over the past few decades have proven the benefits and cost savings of diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) and medical nutrition therapy (MNT). Yet, the benefits continue to be underutilized. Little evidence is available to definitively assess insurance coverage for both services.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Salivary proteomic analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and periodontitis.

Clin Oral Investig

January 2025

Institute of Science and Technology, Division of Periodontics, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Av. Eng. Francisco José Longo, 777, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, 12245-000, Brazil.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the salivary protein profile in individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM2) and periodontitis and their respective controls.

Methods: Eighty participants were included in the study. The four groups were formed by individuals with DM2 and periodontitis (DM2 + P, n = 20), DM2 without periodontitis (DM2, n = 20), periodontitis without DM2 (P, n = 20) and individuals without periodontitis and without DM2 (H, n = 20).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!