Glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Our evolving faith in the face of evidence

René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, Victor Manuel Montori

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background - We sought to determine the concordance between the accumulating evidence about the impact of tight versus less tight glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus since the publication of UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) in 1998 until 2015 with the views about that evidence published in journal articles and practice guidelines. Methods and Results - We searched in top general medicine and specialty journals for articles referring to glycemic control appearing between 2006 and 2015 and identified the latest practice guidelines. To summarize the evidence, we included all published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of contemporary randomized trials of glycemic control measuring patient-important microvascular and macrovascular outcomes, and completed a meta-analysis of their follow-up extensions. We identified 16 guidelines and 328 statements. The body of evidence produced estimates warranting moderate confidence. This evidence reported no significant impact of tight glycemic control on the risk of dialysis/transplantation/renal death, blindness, or neuropathy. In the past decade, however, most published statements (77%-100%) and guidelines (95%) unequivocally endorsed benefit. There is also no significant effect on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or stroke; however, there is a consistent 15% relative-risk reduction of nonfatal myocardial infarction. Between 2006 and 2008, most statements (47%-83%) endorsed the benefit; after 2008 (ACCORD), only a minority (21%-36%) did. Conclusions - Discordance exists between the research evidence and academic and clinical policy statements about the value of tight glycemic control to reduce micro- and macrovascular complications. This discordance may distort priorities in the research and practice agendas designed to improve the lives of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)504-512
Number of pages9
JournalCirculation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Volume9
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Practice Guidelines
Meta-Analysis
Guidelines
Mortality
Blindness
Risk Reduction Behavior
Research
Kidney Transplantation
Renal Dialysis
Publications
Stroke
Myocardial Infarction
Medicine
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • blindness
  • complications
  • evidence-based medicine
  • myocardial infarction
  • type 2 diabetes mellitus

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus : Our evolving faith in the face of evidence. / Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, René; Montori, Victor Manuel.

In: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Vol. 9, No. 5, 01.09.2016, p. 504-512.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{aa2c3c64bc0a4d58a906b8f41c2f0779,
title = "Glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Our evolving faith in the face of evidence",
abstract = "Background - We sought to determine the concordance between the accumulating evidence about the impact of tight versus less tight glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus since the publication of UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) in 1998 until 2015 with the views about that evidence published in journal articles and practice guidelines. Methods and Results - We searched in top general medicine and specialty journals for articles referring to glycemic control appearing between 2006 and 2015 and identified the latest practice guidelines. To summarize the evidence, we included all published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of contemporary randomized trials of glycemic control measuring patient-important microvascular and macrovascular outcomes, and completed a meta-analysis of their follow-up extensions. We identified 16 guidelines and 328 statements. The body of evidence produced estimates warranting moderate confidence. This evidence reported no significant impact of tight glycemic control on the risk of dialysis/transplantation/renal death, blindness, or neuropathy. In the past decade, however, most published statements (77{\%}-100{\%}) and guidelines (95{\%}) unequivocally endorsed benefit. There is also no significant effect on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or stroke; however, there is a consistent 15{\%} relative-risk reduction of nonfatal myocardial infarction. Between 2006 and 2008, most statements (47{\%}-83{\%}) endorsed the benefit; after 2008 (ACCORD), only a minority (21{\%}-36{\%}) did. Conclusions - Discordance exists between the research evidence and academic and clinical policy statements about the value of tight glycemic control to reduce micro- and macrovascular complications. This discordance may distort priorities in the research and practice agendas designed to improve the lives of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.",
keywords = "blindness, complications, evidence-based medicine, myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes mellitus",
author = "Ren{\'e} Rodr{\'i}guez-Guti{\'e}rrez and Montori, {Victor Manuel}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.002901",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "504--512",
journal = "Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes",
issn = "1941-7713",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

T2 - Our evolving faith in the face of evidence

AU - Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, René

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Background - We sought to determine the concordance between the accumulating evidence about the impact of tight versus less tight glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus since the publication of UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) in 1998 until 2015 with the views about that evidence published in journal articles and practice guidelines. Methods and Results - We searched in top general medicine and specialty journals for articles referring to glycemic control appearing between 2006 and 2015 and identified the latest practice guidelines. To summarize the evidence, we included all published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of contemporary randomized trials of glycemic control measuring patient-important microvascular and macrovascular outcomes, and completed a meta-analysis of their follow-up extensions. We identified 16 guidelines and 328 statements. The body of evidence produced estimates warranting moderate confidence. This evidence reported no significant impact of tight glycemic control on the risk of dialysis/transplantation/renal death, blindness, or neuropathy. In the past decade, however, most published statements (77%-100%) and guidelines (95%) unequivocally endorsed benefit. There is also no significant effect on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or stroke; however, there is a consistent 15% relative-risk reduction of nonfatal myocardial infarction. Between 2006 and 2008, most statements (47%-83%) endorsed the benefit; after 2008 (ACCORD), only a minority (21%-36%) did. Conclusions - Discordance exists between the research evidence and academic and clinical policy statements about the value of tight glycemic control to reduce micro- and macrovascular complications. This discordance may distort priorities in the research and practice agendas designed to improve the lives of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AB - Background - We sought to determine the concordance between the accumulating evidence about the impact of tight versus less tight glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus since the publication of UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) in 1998 until 2015 with the views about that evidence published in journal articles and practice guidelines. Methods and Results - We searched in top general medicine and specialty journals for articles referring to glycemic control appearing between 2006 and 2015 and identified the latest practice guidelines. To summarize the evidence, we included all published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of contemporary randomized trials of glycemic control measuring patient-important microvascular and macrovascular outcomes, and completed a meta-analysis of their follow-up extensions. We identified 16 guidelines and 328 statements. The body of evidence produced estimates warranting moderate confidence. This evidence reported no significant impact of tight glycemic control on the risk of dialysis/transplantation/renal death, blindness, or neuropathy. In the past decade, however, most published statements (77%-100%) and guidelines (95%) unequivocally endorsed benefit. There is also no significant effect on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or stroke; however, there is a consistent 15% relative-risk reduction of nonfatal myocardial infarction. Between 2006 and 2008, most statements (47%-83%) endorsed the benefit; after 2008 (ACCORD), only a minority (21%-36%) did. Conclusions - Discordance exists between the research evidence and academic and clinical policy statements about the value of tight glycemic control to reduce micro- and macrovascular complications. This discordance may distort priorities in the research and practice agendas designed to improve the lives of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

KW - blindness

KW - complications

KW - evidence-based medicine

KW - myocardial infarction

KW - type 2 diabetes mellitus

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988526087&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988526087&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.002901

DO - 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.002901

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 504

EP - 512

JO - Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

JF - Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

SN - 1941-7713

IS - 5

ER -