Type 2 DM - tigh control unwise ?

[Guest guest]

From the annals of Internal Medicine this week - discuss with your diabetes

docs.

Sandy r

Tight Glycemic Control May Not Be Best in Type 2 Diabetes

Laurie Barclay, MD

April 20, 2009 — Tight glycemic control may not be best in patients with type 2

diabetes, according to the results of a review and critique of recent large

randomized trials reported online April 20 in the ls of Internal Medicine.

In addition to summarizing findings from trials that evaluated tight glycemic

control in patients with type 2 diabetes, the article offers practical,

evidence-based suggestions for management.

" Some diabetes guidelines set low glycemic control goals for patients with type

2 diabetes mellitus (such as a hemoglobin A level as low as 6.5% to 7.0%) to

avoid or delay complications, " write Victor M. Montori, MD, MSc, from the Mayo

Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and Mercè Fernández-Balsells, MD, from Hospital

Universitari de Girona Doctor J. Trueta in Girona, Spain. " Our review and

critique of recent large randomized trials in patients with type 2 diabetes

suggest that tight glycemic control burdens patients with complex treatment

programs, hypoglycemia, weight gain, and costs and offers uncertain benefits in

return. We believe clinicians should prioritize supporting well being and

healthy lifestyles, preventive care, and cardiovascular risk reduction in these

patients. "

The reviewers examined findings from large randomized trials comparing clinical

outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes managed using tight vs less tight

glycemic targets. Trials of interventions designed to reduce multiple risk

factors, to test the efficacy of a single antihyperglycemic agent vs placebo, or

to evaluate glycemic durability were not included.

Except for the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) metformin

trial, findings from the other trials indicate that all-cause or cardiovascular

death, stroke, amputations, and microvascular complications are not decreased by

tight glycemic control. However, effect estimates were imprecise, because few

patients developed complications, and effects were heterogeneous across trials,

making the findings inconclusive.

The risk for nonfatal myocardial infarction might be lowered by about 16% by

intensive glycemic control, based on reported findings from all trials, at the

expense of doubled or tripled risk for severe hypoglycemia. The incidence of

hypoglycemia was also highest in trials with the lowest glycosylated hemoglobin

(HbA1c) target levels. In all but the metformin vs conventional comparison in

the UKPDS trial, intensive glycemic control was also associated with a 2% weight

gain.

Low hemoglobin A (HbA) has been not only a clinical goal but also a quality

measure for healthcare, with conventional wisdom advocating that to reduce

diabetes complications, routine management of type 2 diabetes should aim for

tight glycemic control. Instead, the reviewers suggest that optimal glycemic

control requires individualizing hemoglobin A1c targets, so that those targets

and the interventions needed to achieve them reflect patient-specific factors

including their individual preferences.

Promoting patient well-being and healthy lifestyles, preventive care, and

cardiovascular risk reduction should be key priorities for patients with type 2

diabetes, the reviewers recommend. Evidence reviewed from randomized trials does

not strongly suggest that tight glycemic control is more beneficial with regard

to lowering the risk for diabetes complications than it is harmful.

In certain circumstances, such as patients with newly diagnosed diabetes, early

tight glycemic control may be appropriate. However, tight control has been shown

to cause increases in patient burden, cost, and the harm of serious

hypoglycemia. Therefore, further studies are needed to confirm or refute the

potential net benefit of tight control before patients are subjected to the

demonstrated harms.

" Given that patients with diabetes often have comorbid conditions, clinicians

should avoid glycemic control interventions that overwhelm the patients'

capacity to cope clinically, psychologically, and financially, " the review

authors write. " Tight disease-centered goals that require highly complex and

burdensome treatment programs may promote frustration, nonadherence, and

financial stress in some patients. For instance, many patients will not benefit

and could reduce or eliminate glucose self-monitoring. "

Glucose levels greater than 10 µmol/L (>180 mg/dL) may produce symptoms, whereas

medication is associated with risk for hypoglycemia. For many patients, a

reasonable and feasible

HbA1c target is between 7% and 7.5% (estimated average glucose level, 8.5 – 9.5

µmol/L [150 – 160 mg/dL]). To achieve this goal for other patients, such as

those with severe insulin deficiency, management may need to be intensive,

requiring interventions such as physiologic insulin dosing (basal-bolus

regimens) and intense monitoring. Once clinicians and patients have chosen an

individualized, optimal HbA1c target, they should design a management regimen to

achieve that target.

Because glycemic targets should be individualized, HbA1c targets for clinical

use should not be the same as those used to measure quality of care. If HbA1c is

used as a performance measure, an upper limit — for example, HbA1c level greater

than 9% — may be more appropriate to indicate possibly inadequate care than one

that would fail to consider individual patient needs and goals (such as HbA1c

level < 7%).

" Because we cannot confidently distinguish the relative effectiveness of

different diabetes medications in reducing complications, we recommend basing

their selection on such factors as burden of administration and side effects, "

the reviewer authors conclude. " We have developed and are studying tools to

promote patient involvement in choosing diabetes medications. We hope that tools

and tactics that encourage patient involvement in treatment decisions prove to

be effective and lead to treatment programs that are both evidence-based and

consistent with patients' context, values, and preferences. "