Cited by 358Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Association of HbA1c levels with vascular complications and death in patients with type 2 diabetes: evidence of glycaemic thresholds

Open access
for the ADVANCE Collaborative Group, Zoungas, S., Chalmers, J., Ninomiya, T., Li, Q., Cooper, M. E., Colagiuri, S., Fulcher, G. +11 more·2012·Diabetologia

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis There is conflicting evidence regarding appropriate glycaemic targets for patients with type 2 diabetes. Here, we investigate the relationship between HbA(1c) and the risks of vascular complications and death in such patients.Methods Eleven thousand one hundred and forty patients were randomised to intensive or standard glucose control in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial. Glycaemic exposure was assessed as the mean of HbA(1c) measurements during follow-up and prior to the first event. Adjusted risks for each HbA(1c) decile were estimated using Cox models. Possible differences in the association between HbA(1c) and risks at different levels of HbA(1c) were explored using linear spline models.Results There was a non-linear relationship between mean HbA(1c) during follow-up and the risks of macrovascular events, microvascular events and death. Within the range of HbA(1c) studied (5.5-10.5%), there was evidence of 'thresholds', such that below HbA(1c) levels of 7.0% for macrovascular events and death, and 6.5% for microvascular events, there was no significant change in risks (all p > 0.8). Above these thresholds, the risks increased significantly: every 1% higher HbA(1c) level was associated with a 38% higher risk of a macrovascular event, a 40% higher risk of a microvascular event and a 38% higher risk of death (all p < 0.0001).Conclusions/interpretation In patients with type 2 diabetes, HbA(1c) levels were associated with lower risks of macrovascular events and death down to a threshold of 7.0% and microvascular events down to a threshold of 6.5%. There was no evidence of lower risks below these levels but neither was there clear evidence of harm.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-011-2404-1

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Similar U-shaped curves were observed in a 7-year observational study of people with T1D and a 22-year observational study of more than 20,000 people with T2D.

    “Similar U-shaped curves were found in a 7-year observational study of persons with T1D and a 22-year observational study of >20,000 persons with T2D.83,84”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [84]

    The Results (Study population and baseline characteristics; page unavailable) report 11,086 participants, not more than 20,000, and find that risk increased above HbA1c thresholds but had no clear relationship with HbA1c below them—not the claimed U-shaped curve. This paper therefore does not describe the attributed 22-year T2D study; its findings also do not establish the separately mentioned T1D study. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In RCTs, targeting lower HbA1c values using glucose-lowering medications has been proven to reduce risks of microvascular diabetes complications (kidney disease, retinopathy, neuropathy) and, in some studies, also macrovascular diabetes complications (cardiovascular events).

    “In RCTs, targeting lower HbA1c values using glucose-lowering medications has been proven to reduce risks of microvascular diabetes complications (i.e., kidney disease, retinopathy, neuropathy) and, in some studies, also macrovascular diabetes complications (i.e., cardiovascular events).”

    From KDIGO 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease (2022) · cites this paper as [193]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In T1D or T2D, lower achieved HbA1c levels below 7% versus 8%-9% reduce the risk of overall microvascular complications, including nephropathy and retinopathy, and macrovascular complications in some RCTs.

    “In both T1D or T2D, lower achieved levels of HbA1c &lt; 7% ( &lt; 53 mmol/mol) versus 8% -9% (64 -75 mmol/mol) reduce risk of overall microvascular complications, including nephropathy and retinopathy, and macrovascular complications in some RCTs. 189 -193”

    From KDIGO 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease (2022) · cites this paper as [193]

    The Discussion and Conclusions (page not available in our copy) report that, among people with type 2 diabetes, lower achieved HbA1c was associated with lower microvascular risk down to 6.5% and macrovascular risk down to 7%. The Outcomes section includes nephropathy and retinopathy among microvascular events. This post hoc analysis does not establish that lowering HbA1c caused those reductions in an RCT, and it does not study type 1 diabetes or directly test the stated <7% versus 8%–9% comparison. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The diagnostic HbA1c cut-off for diabetes of 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) was defined by WHO as broadly the level where diabetes-specific microvascular complications start to emerge.

    “The diagnostic HbA1c cut-off for diabetes of 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) was defined by WHO as broadly the level where diabetes-specific microvascular complications start to emerge [90, 91].”
  • Observational studies have shown a U-shaped relationship between HbA1c and clinical outcome, suggesting that lower HbA1c is not always better.

    “Also, observational studies have shown a U-shaped relationship between HbA1c and clinical outcome, suggesting that lower HbA1c is not always better.135,136”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [19]19. Kengne AP, Patel A, Colagiuri S et al (2010) The Framingham and UKPDS risk equations do not reliably estimate the probability of cardiovascular events in a large ethnically diverse sample of patients with diabetes: the ADVANCE Study. Diabetologia 53 (5):821-831

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
for the ADVANCE Collaborative Group, Zoungas, S., Chalmers, J., Ninomiya, T., Li, Q., Cooper, M. E., Colagiuri, S., Fulcher, G., de Galan, B. E., Harrap, S., Hamet, P., Heller, S., MacMahon, S., Marre, M., Poulter, N., Travert, F., Patel, A., Neal, B., & Woodward, M.
Affiliations
  • The George Institute for Global Health (AU)
  • Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Royal North Shore Hospital (AU)
  • The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
  • Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CA)
  • Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Zoungas, S.
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2011-12-21
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
636-643
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2147521434
Cited by
358
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 19
FWCI
18.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
  • Servier
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (211086, 358395, 571281, IDs 358395)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
HbA1c, type 2 diabetes, glycemic targets, macrovascular complications, microvascular complications, mortality, tight glycemic control, ADVANCE trial, nonlinear dose-response relationship
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diabetic Angiopathies, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypertension, Hypoglycemic Agents, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Cohort Studies, Proportional Hazards Models, Microvessels

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review