Cited by 54Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

A1C targets should be personalized to maximize benefits while limiting risks

Open access
Riddle, Matthew C., Gerstein, Hertzel C., Holman, Rury R., Inzucchi, Silvio E., Zinman, Bernard, Zoungas, Sophia, Cefalu, William T.·2018·Diabetes Care

Abstract

A set of guidance statements recently published by the American College of Physicians (ACP) advocates relaxation of goals for control of glycated hemoglobin (A1C) by people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (1). This publication advises that “clinicians should reevaluate HbA1c levels and revise treatment strategies on the basis of changes in the balance of benefits and harms.” Specifically, it proposes reducing pharmacotherapy for any person when A1C is <6.5%, seeking a level between 7 and 8% for “most patients,” and aiming only to minimize symptoms without any specific A1C goal for those over age 80 years or with chronic medical conditions likely to limit life expectancy. These recommendations are at odds with those of other professional organizations, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA) (2–5). We believe the ACP recommendations fail to consider several important bodies of scientific evidence, and if they are widely adopted in clinical practice, the recent progress in management of diabetes may be threatened. Each of the ACP’s recommendations requires specific comments. These will be followed by a more general discussion of our concerns. The ACP’s main justification for decreasing therapy whenever A1C is <6.5% is the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial’s finding of ∼20% increased mortality—mostly from cardiovascular (CV) events—when the median A1C attained by intensive treatment was 6.4% (6). However, this generalized advice does not acknowledge experience in other trials. In contrast to ACCORD, the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial (7) and the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) (8), which similarly enrolled high-risk patients and sought A1C levels <7%, did not show increased short-term CV risk or mortality. Importantly, the newly diagnosed, low-risk participants in the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) also showed no tendency toward increased early mortality …

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 · 10.2337/dci18-0018

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • The greatest absolute risk reduction in glucose control comes from improving very elevated glycemic levels, while a more modest reduction results from near normalization of plasma glucose levels.

    “The greatest absolute risk reduction comes from improving very elevated glycemic levels, and a more modest reduction results from near normalization of plasma glucose levels (2,14).”

    From Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    In “A1C Targets Should Be Personalized to Maximize Benefits While Limiting Risks” (page not available in our copy), the paper says lower A1C is associated with lower long-term complication risks and describes benefits from seeking near-normal glucose levels. It does not compare absolute risk reductions from improving very elevated levels with those from near-normalization, so the claimed ranking of benefits is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Riddle, M. C., Gerstein, H. C., Holman, R. R., Inzucchi, S. E., Zinman, B., Zoungas, S., & Cefalu, W. T.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Population Health Research Institute (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • American Diabetes Association (US)
Corresponding author
Riddle, Matthew C.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2018-05-11
Volume
41
Issue
6
Pages
1121-1124
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2803869903
Cited by
54
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5
FWCI
7.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, HbA1c targets, type 2 diabetes, ACCORD trial, cardiovascular risk, mortality, ADVANCE trial, UKPDS, older adults

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