Cited by 261Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and Management

Glycated haemoglobin A1c as a risk factor of cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in diabetic and non-diabetic populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Cavero-Redondo, Iván, Peleteiro, Barbara, Álvarez-Bueno, Celia, Rodriguez-Artalejo, Fernando, Martínez-Vizcaíno, Vicente·2017·BMJ Open

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and the risk of cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality based on data from observational studies and to determine the optimal levels of HbA1c for preventing cardiovascular events and/or mortality in diabetic and non-diabetic populations. REVIEW METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science databases, from inception to July 2016, for observational studies addressing the association of HbA1c levels with mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. Random effects models were used to compute pooled estimates of HR and respective 95% CI for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and risk of cardiovascular events, separately for people with and without diabetes. RESULTS: Seventy-four published studies were included in the systematic review, but only 46 studies could be incorporated in the meta-analysis. In both diabetic and non-diabetic populations, there was an increase in the risk of all-cause mortality when HbA1c levels were over 8.0% and 6.0%, respectively. The highest all-cause mortality in people with diabetes was HbA1c above 9.0% (HR=1.69; 95% CI 1.09 to 2.66) and in those without diabetes was HbA1c above 6.0% (HR=1.74; 95% CI 1.38 to 2.20). However, both diabetic and non-diabetic populations with lower HbA1c levels (below 6.0% HR=1.57; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.17 and below 5.0% HR=1.19; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.36, respectively) had higher all-cause mortality. Similar pooled estimates were found when cardiovascular mortality was the outcome variable. CONCLUSION: HbA1c is a reliable risk factor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in both diabetics and non-diabetics. Our findings establish optimal HbA1c levels, for the lowest all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, ranging from 6.0% to 8.0% in people with diabetes and from 5.0% to 6.0% in those without diabetes.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015949

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • A1C has lower sensitivity than fasting plasma glucose or 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test for diagnosing diabetes.

    “analyses of the fidelity of DM diagnosis using A1C have reported a lower sensitivity than FPG or 2-hour OGTT.4,5,7-10”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Introduction discusses HbA1c as a diagnostic criterion, and the Discussion describes changes to fasting-plasma-glucose and HbA1c thresholds. Neither passage compares their diagnostic sensitivity. Searches for lower sensitivity and OGTT found no passage addressing the claimed comparison with fasting plasma glucose or a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A meta-analysis of 46 observational studies reported that patients with diabetes with HbA1c ranging from 6.0% to 8.0% had the lowest all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

    “A meta-analysis of 46 observational studies reported that patients with diabetes with HbA1c ranging from 6.0% to 8.0% had the lowest all-cause and CVD mortality (27).”

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: 3

  1. [4]World Health Organization. Use of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus: abbreviated report of a WHO consultation. Geneva: WHO, 2011. 26158184
  2. [15]Meta-analysis of observational studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Jama 2000; 283: 2008– 12. 10789670
  3. [39]World Health Organization. Use of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus: abbreviated report of a WHO consultation. Geneva: WHO, 2011. 26158184

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cavero-Redondo, I., Peleteiro, B., Álvarez-Bueno, C., Rodriguez-Artalejo, F., & Martínez-Vizcaíno, V.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Castilla—La Mancha, Health and Social Research Center, Cuenca, Spain
  • EPI Unit, Instituto de Saúde Pública,Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
  • Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid/ IdiPaz, CIBERESP, and IMDEA-Food Institute. CEI UAM+CSIC, Madrid, Spain
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-07
Volume
7
Issue
7
Pages
e015949
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2739699420
Cited by
260
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha (FPU13/01582, FPU13/03137)
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (SFRH/BPD/108751/2015)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
glycated haemoglobin A1c, HbA1c targets, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events, diabetes mellitus, glycemic control, cardiovascular risk factors, non-diabetic population, HbA1c thresholds, cardiovascular disease prevention
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Risk Factors, Observational Studies as Topic

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