Mark E. Cooper

Dr. Mark E. Cooper


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
19 July 2021 in Nature Reviews Nephrology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
EBEoin Brennan
Eoin Brennan
PKPhillip Kantharidis
Phillip Kantharidis
MCMark E. Cooper
Mark E. Cooper
CGCatherine Godson
Catherine Godson

22 May 2019 in Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AWAnnabelle M. Warren
Annabelle M. Warren
SKSøren T. Knudsen
Søren T. Knudsen
MCMark E. Cooper
Mark E. Cooper
Introduction: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in diabetes and is the most common cause of proteinuric and non-proteinuric forms of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Control of risk factors such as blood glucose and blood pressure is not always achievable or effective. Significant research efforts have attempted to understand the pathophysiology of DKD and develop new therapies. Areas covered: We review DKD pathophysiology in the context of existing and emerging therapies that affect hemodynamic and metabolic pathways. Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition has become standard care. Recent evidence for renoprotective activity of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists is an exciting step forward while endothelin receptor blockade shows promise. Multiple metabolic pathways of DKD have been evaluated with varying success; including mitochondrial function, reactive oxygen species, NADPH oxidase (NOX), transcription factors (NF-B and Nrf2), advanced glycation, protein kinase C (PKC), aldose reductase, JAK-STAT, autophagy, apoptosis-signaling kinase 1 (ASK1), fibrosis and epigenetics. Expert opinion: There have been major advances in the understanding and treatment of DKD. SGLT2i and GLP-1 agonists have demonstrated renoprotection, with novel therapies under evaluation. Addressing the interaction between hemodynamic and metabolic pathways may help achieve prevention, attenuation or even reversal of DKD.

19 May 2022 in Diabetologia
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JLJinli Liu
Jinli Liu
RBRuhai Bai
Ruhai Bai
ZCZhonglin Chai
Zhonglin Chai
MCMark E. Cooper
Mark E. Cooper
PZPaul Z. Zimmet
Paul Z. Zimmet
LZLei Zhang
Lei Zhang
Aims/hypothesis: The study aims to quantify the global trend of the disease burden of type 2 diabetes caused by various risks factors by country income tiers. Methods: Data on type 2 diabetes, including mortality and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) during 1990–2019, were obtained from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. We analysed mortality and DALY rates and the population attributable fraction (PAF) in various risk factors of type 2 diabetes by country income tiers. Results: Globally, the age-standardised death rate (ASDR) attributable to type 2 diabetes increased from 16.7 (15.7, 17.5)/100,000 person-years in 1990 to 18.5 (17.2, 19.7)/100,000 person-years in 2019. Similarly, age-standardised DALY rates increased from 628.3 (537.2, 730.9)/100,000 person-years to 801.5 (670.6, 954.4)/100,000 person-years during 1990–2019. Lower-middle-income countries reported the largest increase in the average annual growth of ASDR (1.3%) and an age-standardised DALY rate (1.6%) of type 2 diabetes. The key PAF attributing to type 2 diabetes deaths/DALYs was high BMI in countries of all income tiers. With the exception of BMI, while in low- and lower-middle-income countries, risk factors attributable to type 2 diabetes-related deaths and DALYs are mostly environment-related, the risk factors in high-income countries are mostly lifestyle-related. Conclusions/interpretation: Type 2 diabetes disease burden increased globally, but low- and middle-income countries showed the highest growth rate. A high BMI level remained the key contributing factor in all income tiers, but environmental and lifestyle-related factors contributed differently across income tiers. Data availability: To download the data used in these analyses, please visit the Global Health Data Exchange at http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2019. Graphical

1 March 2021 in Diabetes & Metabolism
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Sathish ThirunavukkarasuSathish Thirunavukkarasu
Sathish Thirunavukkarasu
RTRobyn J. Tapp
Robyn J. Tapp
MCMark E. Cooper
Mark E. Cooper
PZPaul Zimmet
Paul Zimmet

25 May 2021 in Diabetes Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Tu Ngoc NguyenTu Ngoc Nguyen
Tu Ngoc Nguyen
KHKatie Harris
Katie Harris
MWMark Woodward
Mark Woodward
JCJohn Chalmers
John Chalmers
MCMark E. Cooper
Mark E. Cooper
RLRichard I. Lindley
Richard I. Lindley
OBJECTIVE: To develop a frailty index (FI) and explore the relationship of frailty to subsequent adverse outcomes on the effectiveness and safety of more intensive control of both blood glucose and blood pressure (BP), among participants with type 2 diabetes in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the effectiveness and safety of intensive glucose control and BP intervention according to frailty (defined as FI >0.21) status. The primary outcomes were macro- and microvascular events. The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, severe hypoglycemia, and discontinuation of BP treatment due to hypotension/dizziness. RESULTS: There were 11,140 participants (mean age, 65.8 years; 42.5% women, 25.7% frail). Frailty was an independent predictor of all primary outcomes and secondary outcomes. The effect of intensive glucose treatment on primary outcomes showed some evidence of attenuation in the frail: hazard ratios for combined major macro- and microvascular events 1.03 (95% CI 0.90–1.19) in the frail versus 0.84 (95% CI 0.74–0.94) in the nonfrail (P = 0.02). A similar trend was observed with BP intervention. Severe hypoglycemia rates (per 1,000 person-years) were higher in the frail: 8.39 (6.15–10.63) vs. 4.80 (3.84–5.76) in nonfrail (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in discontinuation of BP treatment between frailty groups. CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to retrospectively estimate frailty in a trial population, and this FI identified those at higher risk of poor outcomes. Participants with frailty had some attenuation of benefit from intensive glucose-lowering and BP-lowering treatments.

14 March 2018 in Cardiovascular Diabetology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JRJulio Rosenstock
Julio Rosenstock
VPVlado Perkovic
Vlado Perkovic
JAJohn H. Alexander
John H. Alexander
MCMark E. Cooper
Mark E. Cooper
NMNikolaus Marx
Nikolaus Marx
DMDarren K. McGuire
Darren K. McGuire
Background: Cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials in type 2 diabetes (T2D) have underrepresented patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), leading to uncertainty regarding their kidney efficacy and safety. The CARMELINA® trial aims to evaluate the effects of linagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, on both CV and kidney outcomes in a study population enriched for cardio-renal risk. Methods: CARMELINA® is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 27 countries in T2D patients at high risk of CV and/or kidney events. Participants with evidence of CKD with or without CV disease and HbA1c 6.5–10.0% (48–86 mmol/mol) were randomized 1:1 to receive linagliptin once daily or matching placebo, added to standard of care adjusted according to local guidelines. The primary outcome is time to first occurrence of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke. The key secondary outcome is a composite of time to first sustained occurrence of end-stage kidney disease, ≥ 40% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline, or renal death. CV and kidney events are prospectively adjudicated by independent, blinded clinical event committees. CARMELINA® was designed to continue until at least 611 participants had confirmed primary outcome events. Assuming a hazard ratio of 1.0, this provides 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of linagliptin versus placebo within the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.3 at a one-sided α-level of 2.5%. If non-inferiority of linagliptin for the primary outcome is demonstrated, then its superiority for both the primary outcome and the key secondary outcome will be investigated with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Results: Between July 2013 and August 2016, 6980 patients were randomized and took ≥ 1 dose of study drug (40.6, 33.1, 16.9, and 9.4% from Europe, South America, North America, and Asia, respectively). At baseline, mean ± SD age was 65.8 ± 9.1 years, HbA1c 7.9 ± 1.0%, BMI 31.3 ± 5.3 kg/m2, and eGFR 55 ± 25 mL/min/1.73 m2. A total of 5148 patients (73.8%) had prevalent kidney disease (defined as eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or macroalbuminuria [albumin-to-creatinine ratio > 300 mg/g]) and 3990 patients (57.2%) had established CV disease with increased albuminuria; these characteristics were not mutually exclusive. Microalbuminuria (n = 2896 [41.5%]) and macroalbuminuria (n = 2691 [38.6%]) were common. Conclusions: CARMELINA® will add important information regarding the CV and kidney disease clinical profile of linagliptin by including an understudied, vulnerable cohort of patients with T2D at highest cardio-renal risk. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier—NCT01897532; registered July 9, 2013