Background: Arterial stiffness, glycemic control and blood pressure are risk factors of macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to investigate the combined association of arterial stiffness, glycemic control and hypertension status with the occurrence of diabetic macrovascular complication. Methods: A total of 1870 patients of diabetes were enrolled from Beijing Health Management Cohort between 2008 and 2018 as baseline, and then followed for macrovascular complication onset. We proposed a composite risk score (0–4) by arterial stiffness severity, pool glycemic control and hypertension status. Cox model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The mean age (SD) of this population was 59.90 (12.29) years. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years, 359 (19.2%) patients developed macrovascular complication. Compared to the normal arterial stiffness and good glycemic control group, patients with severe arterial stiffness and pool glycemic control had the highest risk of macrovascular complications (HR: 2.73; 95% CI: 1.42–5.25). Similarly, those of severe arterial stiffness and hypertension had the highest risk (HR: 2.69; 95% CI: 1.61–4.50). Patients of the composite score > 2 had a significantly increased risk of macrovascular complication. Conclusion: This study suggested the clinical importance of combined evaluation of arterial stiffness, glycemic control and hypertension status for the risk stratification and management of macrovascular complication of type 2 diabetes.

Background: Previous studies have observed inconsistent associations between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and heart failure (HF), but these studies were prone to bias based on reverse causality and residual confounding factors. We aimed to investigate genetic liability between COVID-19 and heart failure using a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study. Methods: The causal relationship between COVID-19 (including COVID-19, hospitalized COVID-19 compared with the general population, and severe COVID-19) and HF are determined by using a bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis. We drew on summary statistics from the largest HF genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis on individuals of European ancestry, which included 47,309 HF patients and 930,014 controls. The inverse variance weighted (IVW), an adaption of the Egger regression (MR-Egger), the weighted median, and weighted model were conducted for the Mendelian randomization analysis to estimate a causal effect. To confirm the stability, we performed a “leave-one-out” approach for the sensitivity analysis. Results: Genetically predicted severe COVID-19 was not significantly associated with the risk of HF [odds ratio (OR), 1.003; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.969–1.037; p = 0.867]. The IVW demonstrated that there was no association between genetically hospitalized COVID-19 infection and HF risk [OR, 1.009; 95% CI, 0.939–1.085; p = 0.797]. There was no evidence to support the association between genetically determined COVID-19 and the risk of HF [OR, 1.066; 95% CI, 0.955–1.190; p = 0.253]. In addition, genetically predicted HF was also not causally associated with COVID-19 [OR, 1.162; 95% CI, 0.824–1.639; p = 0.393]. MR-Egger analysis indicated no evidence of directional pleiotropy. Conclusion: The current bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis overcomes the limitations of observational studies. Our findings indicated that there is no causal association between COVID-19 and HF.