Abstract
A panel of primary care and diabetes specialists conducted focused literature searches on the current role of glycaemic control in the management of type 2 diabetes and revisited the evolution of evidence supporting the importance of early and intensive blood glucose control as a central strategy to reduce the risk of adverse long-term outcomes. The optimal approach to type 2 diabetes management has evolved over time as the evidence base has expanded from data from trials that established the role of optimising glycaemic control to recent data from cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) demonstrating organ-protective effects of newer glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs). The results from these CVOTs were derived mainly from people with type 2 diabetes and prior cardiovascular and kidney disease or multiple risk factors. In more recent years, earlier diagnosis in high-risk individuals has contributed to the large proportion of people with type 2 diabetes who do not have complications. In these individuals, a legacy effect of early and optimal control of blood glucose and cardiometabolic risk factors has been proven to reduce cardiovascular and kidney disease events and all-cause mortality. As there is a lack of RCTs investigating the potential synergistic effects of intensive glucose control and organ-protective effects of newer GLDs, this article re-evaluates the evolution of the scientific evidence and highlights the importance of integrating glycaemic control as a pivotal early therapeutic goal in most people with type 2 diabetes, while targeting existing cardiovascular and kidney disease. We also emphasise the importance of implementing multifactorial management using a multidisciplinary approach to facilitate regular review, patient empowerment and the possibility of tailoring interventions to account for the heterogeneity of type 2 diabetes.
Graphical Abstract
![](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00125-024-06254-w/MediaObjects/125_2024_6254_Figa_HTML.png)
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
During the last four decades, the number of available diabetes treatments has more than tripled. Accordingly, clinical guidelines for type 2 diabetes management have evolved from approaches focusing on glycaemic control to more holistic and individualised approaches. The 2018 ADA/EASD recommendations represented a ‘paradigm shift’ in type 2 diabetes management [1], from a primary focus on control of hyperglycaemia to a focus on therapies with specific cardiorenal protective effects without primary consideration of glucose lowering in subsets of individuals. As a result, cardiorenal protection ranks alongside glycaemic control as a key treatment target (Fig. 1a). This approach was based on the results from cardiovascular safety trials, mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2008 in response to the increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) noted with rosiglitazone [2]. This required RCTs to demonstrate non-inferiority for cardiovascular outcomes when comparing newer glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) with placebo on top of the best standard of care.
Paradigms for managing type 2 diabetes and reducing diabetes-related complications based on (a) current consensus recommendations by the ADA/EASD [3] and (b) expert opinion of the authors
These post-FDA cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) enrolled individuals with (very) high cardiovascular risk profiles to facilitate the accrual of high outcome event rates (Table 1). While dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) showed neutral cardiovascular effects, sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) demonstrated cardiorenal benefits in individuals with existing complications or multiple risk factors. These results have led to their recommended use as second-line GLDs after metformin for organ protection in high-risk individuals [3].
Although the long-term cardiorenal effects of these newer GLDs in individuals without cardiorenal complications and/or with few cardiometabolic risk factors have been investigated in pharmacoepidemiological studies [4], there is a lack of long-term RCTs of newer agents. Of note, in US real-world studies, around 50% of participants had clinical profiles that fulfilled none of the inclusion criteria for RCTs investigating SGLT2is, and 67% did not meet ADA recommendations for use of SGLT2is or GLP-1 RAs [5, 6]. Moreover, the absolute risk reduction for SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs in the lower risk diabetes populations is quantitatively smaller, as the same relative hazard reduction (i.e. HR) translates into a smaller absolute risk reduction in individuals at lower risk [7, 8]. These observations raise important questions regarding the benefit of these newer organ-protective GLDs compared with the strategy of optimising glycaemic control for the majority of people with type 2 diabetes without complications.
Notwithstanding the availability of over ten classes of GLDs and the increase in the global burden of type 2 diabetes [9], there appears to be a growing perception that glycaemic control is not as important as organ-specific therapies. It is timely, therefore, to revisit the evolution of evidence supporting the importance of early and intensive blood glucose control as a fundamental strategy to optimise long-term outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes (Fig. 1b).
Methods
Eight international diabetes experts (the authors) met virtually and in person to consider the current role of glycaemic control in the management of type 2 diabetes. Individual authors researched and provided commentaries on issues related to perceived messages and practices among physicians and barriers to evidence-to-practice translation. The authors conducted focused literature searches and identified key questions. The present article summarises key aspects of glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
Glycaemic control and diabetes-related complications
Chronic hyperglycaemia is associated with micro- and macrovascular complications, reduced quality of life and premature mortality. The beneficial influence of glycaemic control on clinical outcomes has been shown in observational studies by the positive associations between blood glucose levels and several diabetes-related outcomes. In the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) 35, the incidence of complications was significantly associated with blood glucose levels, with each 10.9 mmol/mol (1%) reduction in updated mean HbA1c linked to a 21% reduction in any diabetes-related endpoint, 21% reduction in diabetes-related deaths, 14% reduction in MI and 37% reduction in microvascular complications [10]. In the Swedish National Diabetes Register, an HbA1c level outside the target range was the strongest predictor of acute MI and stroke [11]. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis have also indicated positive relationships between HbA1c and risk of macrovascular outcomes and mortality [12].
Although the UKPDS RCT demonstrated that intensive glucose control reduced the risk of long-term micro- and macrovascular complications in people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes [13], three RCTs published between 2008 and 2009 showed different results in people with type 2 diabetes of long duration, the majority of whom had complications or risk factors. In the ACCORD trial, intensive glucose control increased the risk of CVD and related death [14]. In the ADVANCE trial, a more gradual approach to achieving glycaemic targets reduced the risk of the predefined combined microvascular and macrovascular outcomes [15]. In the VA Diabetes Trials, intensive glucose control did not reduce the risk of CVD, microvascular outcomes, CVD death or all-cause death [16]. Post hoc analyses generated several hypotheses around the possible reasons for this. These included a lower efficacy of intensive glucose control in older people, the presence of complications (particularly autonomic neuropathy), the risk of hypoglycaemia with intensive treatment strategies and possibly higher rates of hypoglycaemia-associated complications [16]. At the same time meta-analyses of RCTs have confirmed that intensive glucose control reduces the risk of CVD, retinopathy and nephropathy [17,18,19,20]. In this light, microvascular complications have been conclusively proven to be prevented or delayed by optimal glycaemic control in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes [16, 19], emphasising the importance of glycaemic control as a key strategy in diabetes management.
The importance of early glycaemic control was first demonstrated in the UKPDS, in which tight control from diagnosis of type 2 diabetes reduced the MI and mortality risk 10 years later by 19–20%. In contrast, delaying glycaemic control reduced the mortality and MI risk by only 3% and 6.5%, respectively [21]. These ‘legacy effects’ became increasingly evident with prolonged follow-up. In the latest 44-year analysis of the UKPDS, early reduction of HbA1c by 8.7 mmol/mol (0.8%) translated to a 10% risk reduction in diabetes-related endpoints, 17% risk reduction in MI, 26% risk reduction in microvascular complications and 10% risk reduction in mortality in the intensive treatment group compared with the control group [13]. As only a few participants in the UKPDS had CVD at baseline, a longer follow-up (i.e. more events) was required to accrue endpoints to achieve statistical significance [22]. Because the sample size and length of follow-up of a trial are dictated by the event rate (i.e. the risk of outcome occurrence), RCTs aiming for a ‘statistically significant’ result should last for several years, potentially decades, if low-risk participants have been enrolled; alternatively, longer term effects can be modelled based on the available data [23,24,25].
Recognising the heterogeneity of type 2 diabetes to improve diagnosis and management
With increasing knowledge about the pathophysiology of diabetes, matching key abnormal pathways with drug mechanisms to personalise care may be the way forward compared with a ‘one size fits all’ strategy.
Age is one key aspect underpinning diabetes phenotypes. Young-onset diabetes has complex aetiologies, with both leanness and obesity being equally important, especially in non-European populations [26,27,28]. Epidemiological analyses have revealed an inverse association between age at diagnosis and increased risk of micro- and macrovascular complications and mortality [27], with earlier diagnosis of type 2 diabetes having a greater impact on life expectancy than late-onset type 2 diabetes [29]. The association between age at diagnosis and risk of mortality/complications is probably due to the cumulative effects of hyperglycaemia and other risk factors in addition to host-related factors, such as genetics or perinatal development [28, 30]. These data emphasise the importance of early and intensive treatment in young people with diabetes [27]. However, most RCTs (including CVOTs) have excluded younger individuals in order to attain a prespecified number of endpoints within a short period of time (i.e. greater statistical power). The lack of guidance has meant that these younger individuals are managed in a diverse manner in real-world practice, which might contribute to their poor outcomes.
The evidence is more robust in older individuals. Intensive glycaemic control is generally associated with a reduced risk of micro- and macrovascular complications, although benefits are attenuated with increasing age [11]. Treatment decisions in older people are more complex because of comorbidities, polypharmacy, frailty and cognitive dysfunction, and the benefits of intensive glycaemic control may be offset by the risk of adverse events, notably severe hypoglycaemia and falls [31, 32]. There is now consensus that glycaemic goals should be individualised with less stringent glycaemic targets in this group and that GLDs that are associated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia should be used [33]. Over-treatment to achieve stringent glycaemic goals may increase the risk of mortality in older people on insulins, sulfonylureas or glinides [34].
Alongside age, information on HbA1c, lipid profiles, autoantibodies, BMI, beta cell function, insulin resistance, genomics and gene expression have been variably included in models to cluster diabetes phenotypes [35]. For example, by using age, BMI, autoantibodies and markers of beta cell function and insulin resistance, individuals can be classified into five subtypes that predict insulin requirements and risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, although these clusters have been replicated in European, Chinese and Indian populations, their clinical relevance has yet to be validated in other populations [36,37,38]. In addition, definitive evidence is needed on whether these complex clustering approaches are superior to conventional clinical and biochemical markers in informing practice [35, 39]. However, given the estimated 5% prevalence of slowly evolving autoimmune type 1 diabetes masking as type 2 diabetes, standardised measurement of autoantibodies may enable insulin-insufficient individuals to be identified, avoiding undue delays in insulin initiation [40, 41]. In support of this, variations in treatment effect across different phenotypes of type 2 diabetes have been reported in observational studies and post hoc analyses of RCTs [42]. However, pragmatic studies, ideally randomised, are needed to determine whether information on diagnostic phenotypes can be translated into therapeutic actions to improve the precision and cost-effectiveness of treatment [43].
Impact of CVOTs on the management paradigm for type 2 diabetes
During the last few decades, a wealth of evidence has emerged from CVOTs that supports the cardiorenal protective effects of SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs in individuals with or at (very) high risk of CVD. Such benefits are mostly independent of intensive glycaemic control and some have also been observed in people without type 2 diabetes [44,45,46]. These results have created a paradigm shift to a focus on organ protection with less emphasis on glycaemic control, which may have had unintended consequences for the many individuals with poor glycaemic control who do not yet have complications [3, 47]. The CVOTs included participants with CVD or multiple CVD risk factors in order to show safety first and, if demonstrated, efficacy [48] (Table 1); thus, they may not be generalisable to the wider type 2 diabetes population in routine clinical practice.
Meta-regression and subgroup analyses of CVOTs have reported similar or heterogeneous RR reductions in primary outcomes or in components of cardiorenal endpoints with SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs when comparing individuals with vs individuals without, or with different severities of, CVD or CKD [7, 49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. Furthermore, given the low rate of events in individuals without complications, the same RR reduction translates to a very different absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat and cost-effectiveness [8]. These nuances highlight the need to perform baseline risk assessments to quantify the absolute benefits of SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs. In this respect, the GRADE trial, which included participants with short-duration type 2 diabetes (<10 years) and HbA1c levels of 51–69 mmol/mol (6.8–8.5%), showed that glargine and a GLP1-RA (liraglutide) were modestly better than a sulfonylurea (glimepiride) and DPP4i (sitagliptin) in reducing HbA1c, although all four interventions improved glucose levels [56]. More RCTs and real-world evidence are required to assess the absolute benefits of the different GLD classes in low-risk individuals with short disease duration (see Text box: ‘Current evidence gaps and avenues for future research’).
![figure b](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00125-024-06254-w/MediaObjects/125_2024_6254_Figb_HTML.png)
In all placebo-controlled CVOTs, participants in the active treatment groups achieved lower HbA1c than those in the control groups, suggesting that glycaemic control might have contributed to the positive outcomes [51, 57, 58] (Table 1). A post hoc analysis of the LEADER trial (which compared the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] between liraglutide and placebo) suggested that up to 41% and 83% of the cardiovascular benefits of liraglutide (depending on the statistical method used) were mediated by a reduction in HbA1c [57]. On the other hand, a mediation analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (which compared the risk of MACE between empagliflozin and placebo) identified haematocrit markers as potential mediators, with a smaller mediating role of glycaemic control, in line with the mechanisms of action of SGLT2is in regulating sodium and water metabolism [59]. A meta-regression of CVOTs estimated that if a 9.8 mmol/mol (0.9% ) reduction in HbA1c was achieved instead of the observed mean of ~0.4% (~4.4 mmol/mol), the reduction in MACE would have been approximately 33%. These findings argue that glycaemic control may contribute, to a variable extent, to the effects of SGTL2is and GLP-1 RAs on MACE [51]. Furthermore, real-world data suggest that different cardiometabolic risk factors might be related to different clinical outcomes. For example, lipid and BP levels might have a greater effect size on MI/ischaemic heart disease, while body weight and glycaemic control might be more relevant for stroke, heart failure and kidney disease [60, 61]. In the CVOTs of DPP-4is, GLP-1RAs and SGLT2is, the risk reduction in non-fatal stroke was entirely driven by glycaemic control [62]. Taken together, there is a need to gather more evidence to study the cost-effectiveness across all available GLDs of improving individual outcomes, especially in those without complications, guided by their baseline risk factors (see Text box: ‘Current evidence gaps and avenues for future research’).
In a typical primary care setting, only one-third of people with type 2 diabetes have CVD [63]. For those without CVD, physicians have a clear window of opportunity to focus on achieving and maintaining optimal glycaemic control alongside the control of CVD risk factors to prevent organ damage. Moreover, hyperglycaemia is a causal factor for microvascular complications, which is associated with poor quality of life and increased risk of CVD, for which optimal glycaemic control remains a definitive solution [64, 65].
Glycaemic control as part of holistic multifactorial risk factor management
The overall goals of care in all people with type 2 diabetes centre on minimising the disease burden by reducing complications and premature mortality while maximising quality of life. This is achieved through the provision of personalised, evidence-based, cost-effective, accessible and affordable holistic interventions to improve blood glucose levels and risk factor control. Therapeutic strategies should aim for intensive glucose lowering to achieve personalised glycaemic targets, especially in people with early type 2 diabetes who do not have complications, rather than being based exclusively on organ-protective effects.
Traditional drugs such as metformin, sulfonylureas and DPP4is have proven glucose-lowering efficacy in RCTs and are well tolerated in real-world settings. Combination therapy can be used to achieve early and sustained optimal glycaemic control instead of the more common stepwise introduction of additional therapies. The VERIFY RCT demonstrated that early combination of metformin and a DPP4i delayed treatment escalation compared with incremental use of medications [66]. Similarly, population-based real-world evidence showed that early treatment escalation with DDP4is (within 2 years of diagnosis) on a background of metformin and sulfonylurea was associated with a delay in insulin initiation and a reduction in cardiorenal events and all-cause death [67, 68].
It is important to note that, in the CVOTs of newer GLDs, including SGLT2is and GLP-1RAs, most participants were treated with conventional GLDs as well as renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors, statins and antiplatelet therapy. The clustering of type 2 diabetes with other cardiometabolic risk factors emphasises the need for multifactorial risk factor management. In the Steno-2 study, intensive risk factor management (blood glucose, BP, lipids) with medications and lifestyle changes (smoking cessation) not only reduced the risk of microvascular complications but also translated into long-term reductions in cardiorenal events and mortality risk [69,70,71]. Several other studies have provided convincing evidence that intensive control of multiple risk factors reduces cardiorenal endpoints and mortality risk at all stages of diabetes [72,73,74].
People with type 2 diabetes have diverse needs beyond medical multifactorial risk management. The latest ADA/EASD guidelines [3] highlight the importance of identifying social determinants of health, including socioeconomic status, physical environment, food insecurity/access, healthcare access, affordability and quality, and social context [75]. While some of these factors might not be modifiable, clinicians are in a position to advocate and engage relevant stakeholders to provide holistic care to address the physical, mental, behavioural and social needs of their patients and improve their outcomes. As holistic, patient-centred and value-based care is context-dependent, using a multidisciplinary team approach is an effective strategy to address the multiple needs of people with diabetes. The allied healthcare professionals/workers making up such teams provide the much-needed liaison between patients and doctors to improve communication and relationships [76]. With the increasing use of electronic medical records, the systematic and ongoing collection of data by establishing well-designed registers that document upstream and modifiable risk factors, with regular linkage to medications, laboratory results, hospitalisations and deaths, can be extremely valuable. This can help inform decisions at both personal (patients and practitioners) and policy levels to improve system- and personal-level healthcare delivery aimed at reducing the burden of diabetes and its complications [77].
Unanswered questions regarding the generalised use of new GLDs
With the growing burden of type 2 diabetes in emerging countries, the choice of GLDs should also be considered in the context of available resources. Although generic SGLT2is are beginning to be available, newer SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs continue to emerge that are significantly more expensive than traditional GLDs. In these circumstances, GLDs with long-established effectiveness, safety and affordability remain important therapeutic options [78].
In individuals with established complications, organ-protective SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs reduce the risk of cardiorenal outcomes [79]; however, their effects on microvascular complications, notably neuropathy and retinopathy, have not been extensively explored [44]. Moreover, their efficacy against individual components of MACE is not uniform: while GLP-1 RAs reduce the risk of stroke [80, 81], SGLT2is mainly reduce the risk of hospitalisations for heart failure and the risk of adverse kidney outcomes [51, 52, 79, 81,82,83]. Furthermore, the effect size of GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is for various outcomes differs within the same class of drugs and varies according to individual risk profiles [84, 85]. Although these observations suggest the potential complementary beneficial effects of these two drug classes, the cost-effectiveness of this combination compared with early attainment of multiple treatment goals remains to be confirmed [25, 86, 87].
All GLDs are effective in reducing HbA1c, with baseline HbA1c being the main determinant of the reduction [88]. However, for all GLDs there is considerable variation in the magnitude of effect between and within drugs classes [7, 81, 89,90,91,92,93,94]. Similarly, the different mechanisms of actions of GLDs result in different safety profiles, both within and between drug classes. These include increased risk of hypoglycaemia (potentially life-threatening) for sulfonylureas and insulin [95, 96], gastrointestinal side effects for GLP1-RAs [89, 97], urogenital sepsis for SGLT2is [90, 97], and heart failure and altered bone metabolism for thiazolidinediones [98]. Further head-to-head RCTs are required to better elucidate the efficacy/safety profiles of these medications and guide decisions based on the overall drug profiles and individuals’ concurrent metabolic abnormalities to maximise efficacy and minimise harm, while taking into consideration individual preference and affordability.
Barriers to improving type 2 diabetes management
Optimal glycaemic control remains a universal care gap. A systematic review of observational studies published between 2020 and 2022 reported that 45–93% of people with type 2 diabetes had poor glycaemic control, with considerable inter- and within-country variations [99]. These variations may be due to many factors, such as late diagnosis, delayed intervention, suboptimal self-management and limited access to care and effective treatments. In this light, glycaemic control has not improved over time despite the introduction of many GLDs and diabetes technologies [100].
Compared with RCTs, the magnitude of the HbA1c reduction achieved with GLDs is lower in real-world clinical practice [101]. Among the contributing factors, poor medication adherence accounts for approximately 70% of the discrepancy between RCTs and real-world settings (Table 2) [27]. Therapeutic inertia (i.e. the delay in initiating/modifying treatment) is a key barrier to optimal type 2 diabetes management; delaying treatment intensification means missed opportunity to reduce adverse clinical outcomes [102]. However, some strategies implemented at provider (i.e. measurement of inertia through audits), patient (i.e. reminders through text messaging) and system (i.e. structured education sessions) levels have resulted in a reduction in therapeutic inertia [103].
In low-/middle-income countries, the availability of, and access to, medications are also major barriers. In all countries, variations in the costs of drug acquisition and administration, differences in reimbursement schemes and irregularity in pricing means that even cheap generic medications can become unaffordable. The WHO includes metformin, sulfonylureas, insulin and SGLT2is in the list of essential medications. To this end, there is an urgent need for policymakers to align the interests of all stakeholders and implement context-relevant drug financing policies to ensure that individuals have access to these life-saving medications.
Conclusions
Despite the central importance of early glycaemic control to improving outcomes throughout the lifespan of people with diabetes, real-world data show that glycaemic control remains poor in most settings. Most people with diabetes will benefit from early achievement and maintenance of glycaemic control. In these individuals, all GLD classes have been demonstrated to be safe and effective in achieving glycaemic targets, especially if supported by a self-management programme with regular assessment and control of risk factors. In addition to improving glycaemic control, in individuals with or at (very) high risk of cardiorenal complications, early use of GLDs with organ-protective effects should be considered if accessible and affordable, although many people will still need additional GLDs and other therapies to achieve multiple treatment targets. Each person with diabetes has a unique profile, which calls for individualised and holistic management beyond medications. By reorganising settings, workforces and models of care, it is possible to exercise a team approach to gather data regularly and stratify risk, empower self-care, reduce therapeutic inertia and use available multiple tools effectively to improve long-term outcomes.
Abbreviations
- CKD:
-
Chronic kidney disease
- CVOT:
-
Cardiovascular outcomes trial
- DPP4i:
-
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor
- FDA:
-
Food and Drug Administration
- GLD:
-
Glucose-lowering drug
- GLP-1 RA:
-
Glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonist
- MACE:
-
Major adverse cardiovascular events
- MI:
-
Myocardial infarction
- SGLT2i:
-
Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor
- UKPDS:
-
UK Prospective Diabetes Study
References
Davies MJ, D’Alessio DA, Fradkin J et al (2018) Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia 61(12):2461–2498. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci18-0033
Nissen SE, Wolski K (2007) Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 356(24):2457–2471. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa072761
Davies MJ, Aroda VR, Collins BS et al (2022) Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2022. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia 65(12):1925–1966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-022-05787-2
Zaccardi F, Davies MJ, Khunti K (2020) The present and future scope of real-world evidence research in diabetes: what questions can and cannot be answered and what might be possible in the future? Diabetes Obes Metab 22(Suppl 3):21–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13929
Wittbrodt E, Chamberlain D, Arnold SV, Tang F, Kosiborod M (2019) Eligibility of patients with type 2 diabetes for sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials: an assessment using the Diabetes Collaborative Registry. Diabetes Obes Metab 21(8):1985–1989. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13738
Colling C, Atlas SJ, Wexler DJ (2021) Application of 2021 American diabetes association glycemic treatment clinical practice recommendations in primary care. Diabetes Care 44(6):1443–1446. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-0013
Shi Q, Nong K, Vandvik PO et al (2023) Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 381:e074068. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-074068
Spiegelhalter D (2017) Risk and uncertainty communication. Annu Rev Stat Appl 4(1):31–60. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-010814-020148
GBD 2021 Diabetes Collaborators (2023) Global, regional, and national burden of diabetes from 1990 to 2021, with projections of prevalence to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet 402(10397):203–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01301-6
Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA et al (2000) Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ 321(7258):405–412. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405
Rawshani A, Rawshani A, Franzen S et al (2018) Risk factors, mortality, and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 379(7):633–644. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800256
Zhang Y, Hu G, Yuan Z, Chen L (2012) Glycosylated hemoglobin in relationship to cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 7(8):e42551. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042551
Adler AI, Coleman RL, Leal J, Whitely WN, Clarke P, Holman RR (2024) Post-trial monitoring of a randomised controlled trial of intensive glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes extended from 10 years to 24 years (UKPDS 91). Lancet 404(10448):145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00537-3
Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP et al (2008) Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 358(24):2545–2559. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0802743
Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J et al (2008) Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 358(24):2560–2572. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0802987
Skyler JS, Bergenstal R, Bonow RO et al (2009) Intensive glycemic control and the prevention of cardiovascular events: implications of the ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VA diabetes trials: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and a scientific statement of the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association. Diabetes Care 32(1):187–192. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-9026
Turnbull FM, Abraira C, Anderson RJ et al (2009) Intensive glucose control and macrovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 52(11):2288–2298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-009-1470-0
Sun S, Hisland L, Grenet G et al (2022) Reappraisal of the efficacy of intensive glycaemic control on microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised control-trials. Therapie 77(4):413–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.therap.2021.10.002
Zoungas S, Arima H, Gerstein HC et al (2017) Effects of intensive glucose control on microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 5(6):431–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30104-3
Kunutsor SK, Balasubramanian VG, Zaccardi F et al (2024) Glycaemic control and macrovascular and microvascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials investigating intensive glucose-lowering strategies in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 26(6):2069–2081. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.15511
Lind M, Imberg H, Coleman RL, Nerman O, Holman RR (2021) Historical HbA(1c) values may explain the type 2 diabetes legacy effect: UKPDS 88. Diabetes Care 44(10):2231–2237. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-2439
Cefalu WT, Kaul S, Gerstein HC et al (2018) Cardiovascular outcomes trials in type 2 diabetes: where do we go from here? Reflections from a diabetes care editors’ expert forum. Diabetes Care 41(1):14–31. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci17-0057
Gaudino M, Pocock S, Rockhold F, Bhatt DL (2023) Reporting extended follow-up in cardiovascular clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 82(23):2246–2250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.09.827
Davies MJ, Kloecker DE, Webb DR, Khunti K, Zaccardi F (2020) Number needed to treat in cardiovascular outcome trials of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic review with temporal analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 22(9):1670–1677. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14066
Neuen BL, Heerspink HJL, Vart P et al (2024) Estimated lifetime cardiovascular, kidney, and mortality benefits of combination treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and nonsteroidal MRA compared with conventional care in patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. Circulation 149(6):450–462. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.123.067584
Luk AO, Lau ES, So WY et al (2014) Prospective study on the incidences of cardiovascular-renal complications in Chinese patients with young-onset type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 37(1):149–157. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-1336
Misra S, Ke C, Srinivasan S et al (2023) Current insights and emerging trends in early-onset type 2 diabetes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 11(10):768–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(23)00225-5
Chan JCN, Chow E, Kong A et al (2024) Multifaceted nature of young-onset diabetes-can genomic medicine improve the precision of diagnosis and management? J Transl Genet Genom 8:13–34. https://doi.org/10.20517/jtgg.2023.36
Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration (2023) Life expectancy associated with different ages at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in high-income countries: 23 million person-years of observation. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 11(10):731–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(23)00223-1
Nanayakkara N, Curtis AJ, Heritier S et al (2021) Impact of age at type 2 diabetes mellitus diagnosis on mortality and vascular complications: systematic review and meta-analyses. Diabetologia 64(2):275–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-020-05319-w
Lee AK, Juraschek SP, Windham BG et al (2020) Severe hypoglycemia and risk of falls in type 2 diabetes: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Diabetes Care 43(9):2060–2065. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-0316
Hambling CE, Khunti K, Cos X et al (2019) Factors influencing safe glucose-lowering in older adults with type 2 diabetes: a PeRsOn-centred ApproaCh To IndiVidualisEd (PROACTIVE) glycemic goals for older people: a position statement of primary care diabetes Europe. Prim Care Diabetes 13(4):330–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2018.12.005
Christiaens A, Henrard S, Zerah L, Dalleur O, Bourdel-Marchasson I, Boland B (2021) Individualisation of glycaemic management in older people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines recommendations. Age Ageing 50(6):1935–1942. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afab157
Christiaens A, Boland B, Germanidis M, Dalleur O, Henrard S (2020) Poor health status, inappropriate glucose-lowering therapy and high one-year mortality in geriatric patients with type 2 diabetes. BMC Geriatr 20(1):367. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01780-9
Misra S, Wagner R, Ozkan B et al (2023) Precision subclassification of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Commun Med 3(1):138. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-023-00360-3
Ke C, Narayan KMV, Chan JCN, Jha P, Shah BR (2022) Pathophysiology, phenotypes and management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Indian and Chinese populations. Nat Rev Endocrinol 18(7):413–432. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-022-00669-4
Ahlqvist E, Storm P, Karajamaki A et al (2018) Novel subgroups of adult-onset diabetes and their association with outcomes: a data-driven cluster analysis of six variables. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 6(5):361–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30051-2
Anjana RM, Baskar V, Nair ATN et al (2020) Novel subgroups of type 2 diabetes and their association with microvascular outcomes in an Asian Indian population: a data-driven cluster analysis: the INSPIRED study. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 8(1):e001506. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001506
Dennis JM, Shields BM, Henley WE, Jones AG, Hattersley AT (2019) Disease progression and treatment response in data-driven subgroups of type 2 diabetes compared with models based on simple clinical features: an analysis using clinical trial data. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 7(6):442–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30087-7
Fan B, Lim CKP, Poon EWM et al (2023) Differential associations of GAD Antibodies (GADA) and C-peptide with insulin initiation, glycemic responses, and severe hypoglycemia in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 46(6):1282–1291. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-2301
Fan B, Wu H, Shi M et al (2022) Associations of the HOMA2-%B and HOMA2-IR with progression to diabetes and glycaemic deterioration in young and middle-aged Chinese. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 38(5):e3525. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3525
Herder C, Roden M (2022) A novel diabetes typology: towards precision diabetology from pathogenesis to treatment. Diabetologia 65(11):1770–1781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05625-x
Tobias DK, Merino J, Ahmad A et al (2023) Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine. Nat Med 29(10):2438–2457. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02502-5
Kunutsor SK, Zaccardi F, Balasubramanian VG et al (2024) Glycaemic control and macrovascular and microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials of novel glucose-lowering agents. Diabetes Obes Metab 26(5):1837–1849. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.15500
Tsai WC, Hsu SP, Chiu YL et al (2022) Cardiovascular and renal efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients without diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. BMJ Open 12(10):e060655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060655
Leite AR, Angélico-Gonçalves A, Vasques-Nóvoa F et al (2022) Effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on cardiovascular events in overweight or obese adults without diabetes: A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials. Diabetes Obes Metab 24(8):1676–1680. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14707
Davies MJ, Drexel H, Jornayvaz FR, Pataky Z, Seferovic PM, Wanner C (2022) Cardiovascular outcomes trials: a paradigm shift in the current management of type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc Diabetol 21(1):144. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-022-01575-9
Zaccardi F, Kloecker DE, Khunti K, Davies MJ (2022) Non-inferiority and clinical superiority of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors: systematic analysis of cardiorenal outcome trials in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 24(8):1598–1606. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14735
Rodriguez-Valadez JM, Tahsin M, Fleischmann KE et al (2023) Cardiovascular and renal benefits of novel diabetes drugs by baseline cardiovascular risk: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Diabetes Care 46(6):1300–1310. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-0772
Sattar N, Lee MMY, Kristensen SL et al (2021) Cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 9(10):653–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00203-5
Giugliano D, Maiorino MI, Bellastella G, Chiodini P, Esposito K (2019) Glycemic control, preexisting cardiovascular disease, and risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review with meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials and intensive glucose control trials. J Am Heart Assoc 8(12):e012356. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.012356
McGuire DK, Shih WJ, Cosentino F et al (2021) Association of SGLT2 inhibitors with cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol 6(2):148–158. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4511
Rahman H, Khan SU, Lone AN et al (2023) Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials and systematic review. J Am Heart Assoc 12(16):e030578. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.123.030578
Mosenzon O, Wiviott SD, Heerspink HJL et al (2021) The effect of dapagliflozin on albuminuria in DECLARE-TIMI 58. Diabetes Care 44(8):1805–1815. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-0076
Mosenzon O, Raz I, Wiviott SD et al (2022) Dapagliflozin and prevention of kidney disease among patients with type 2 diabetes: post Hoc analyses from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. Diabetes Care 45(10):2350–2359. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-0382
Nathan DM, Lachin JM, Balasubramanyam A et al (2022) Glycemia reduction in type 2 diabetes - glycemic outcomes. N Engl J Med 387(12):1063–1074. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2200433
Buse JB, Bain SC, Mann JFE et al (2020) Cardiovascular risk reduction with liraglutide: an exploratory mediation analysis of the LEADER trial. Diabetes Care 43(7):1546–1552. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-2251
Konig M, Riddle MC, Colhoun HM et al (2021) Exploring potential mediators of the cardiovascular benefit of dulaglutide in type 2 diabetes patients in REWIND. Cardiovasc Diabetol 20(1):194. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-021-01386-4
Inzucchi SE, Zinman B, Fitchett D et al (2018) How does empagliflozin reduce cardiovascular mortality? Insights from a mediation analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. Diabetes Care 41(2):356–363. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1096
Yang X, So WY, Kong AP et al (2007) Development and validation of stroke risk equation for Hong Kong Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: the Hong Kong Diabetes Registry. Diabetes Care 30(1):65–70. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc06-1273
Yang X, So WY, Kong AP et al (2008) Development and validation of a total coronary heart disease risk score in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 101(5):596–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.10.019
Maiorino MI, Longo M, Scappaticcio L et al (2021) Improvement of glycemic control and reduction of major cardiovascular events in 18 cardiovascular outcome trials: an updated meta-regression. Cardiovasc Diabetol 20(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-021-01401-8
Einarson TR, Acs A, Ludwig C, Panton UH (2018) Prevalence of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: a systematic literature review of scientific evidence from across the world in 2007–2017. Cardiovasc Diabetol 17(1):83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-018-0728-6
Lui JNM, Lau ESH, Yang A et al (2023) Temporal associations of diabetes-related complications with health-related quality of life decrements in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: a prospective study among 19 322 adults-Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) register (2007–2018). J Diabetes. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.13503
Brownrigg JR, Hughes CO, Burleigh D et al (2016) Microvascular disease and risk of cardiovascular events among individuals with type 2 diabetes: a population-level cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4(7):588–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30057-2
Matthews DR, Paldánius PM, Proot P, Chiang Y, Stumvoll M, Del Prato S (2019) Glycaemic durability of an early combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin versus sequential metformin monotherapy in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (VERIFY): a 5-year, multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet 394(10208):1519–1529. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32131-2
Cheung JTK, Yang A, Wu H et al (2024) Early treatment with dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors reduces glycaemic variability and delays insulin initiation in type 2 diabetes: a propensity score-matched cohort study. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 40(1):e3711. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3711
Cheung JTK, Yang A, Wu H et al (2024) Association of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor initiation at glycated haemoglobin <7.5% with reduced major clinical events mediated by low glycated haemoglobin variability. Diabetes Obes Metab. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.15662
Gaede P, Lund-Andersen H, Parving HH, Pedersen O (2008) Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 358(6):580–591. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0706245
Gaede P, Vedel P, Larsen N, Jensen GV, Parving HH, Pedersen O (2003) Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 348(5):383–393. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa021778
Gaede P, Vedel P, Parving HH, Pedersen O (1999) Intensified multifactorial intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria: the Steno type 2 randomised study. Lancet 353(9153):617–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07368-1
Chan JC, So WY, Yeung CY et al (2009) Effects of structured versus usual care on renal endpoint in type 2 diabetes: the SURE study: a randomized multicenter translational study. Diabetes Care 32(6):977–982. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-1908
Ueki K, Sasako T, Okazaki Y et al (2017) Effect of an intensified multifactorial intervention on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in type 2 diabetes (J-DOIT3): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 5(12):951–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30327-3
Sasso FC, Pafundi PC, Simeon V et al (2021) Efficacy and durability of multifactorial intervention on mortality and MACEs: a randomized clinical trial in type-2 diabetic kidney disease. Cardiovasc Diabetol 20(1):145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-021-01343-1
Hill-Briggs F, Adler NE, Berkowitz SA et al (2020) Social determinants of health and diabetes: a scientific review. Diabetes Care 44(1):258–279. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci20-0053
McGill M, Blonde L, Chan JCN et al (2017) The interdisciplinary team in type 2 diabetes management: challenges and best practice solutions from real-world scenarios. J Clin Transl Endocrinol 7:21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcte.2016.12.001
Chan JCN, Lim LL, Luk AOY et al (2019) From Hong Kong diabetes register to JADE program to RAMP-DM for data-driven actions. Diabetes Care 42(11):2022–2031. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0003
Mohan V, Khunti K, Chan SP et al (2020) Management of type 2 diabetes in developing countries: balancing optimal glycaemic control and outcomes with affordability and accessibility to treatment. Diabetes Ther 11(1):15–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-019-00733-9
Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I et al (2019) SGLT2 inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials. Lancet 393(10166):31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32590-X
Sim R, Chong CW, Loganadan NK et al (2022) Comparative effectiveness of cardiovascular, renal and safety outcomes of second-line antidiabetic drugs use in people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Diabet Med 39(3):e14780. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14780
Palmer SC, Tendal B, Mustafa RA et al (2021) Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 372:m4573. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4573
Arnott C, Li Q, Kang A et al (2020) Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 9(3):e014908. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.014908
Grenet G, Ribault S, Nguyen GB et al (2019) GLUcose COntrol safety & efficacy in type 2 DIabetes, a systematic review and NETwork meta-analysis. PLoS One 14(6):e0217701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217701
Li S, Vandvik PO, Lytvyn L et al (2021) SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for adults with type 2 diabetes: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ 373:n1091. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1091
Zhu J, Yu X, Zheng Y et al (2020) Association of glucose-lowering medications with cardiovascular outcomes: an umbrella review and evidence map. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 8(3):192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30422-X
Neves JS, Borges-Canha M, Vasques-Nóvoa F et al (2023) GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy with and without SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 82(6):517–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.05.048
DeFronzo RA (2017) Combination therapy with GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor. Diabetes Obes Metab 19(10):1353–1362. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.12982
Maloney A, Rosenstock J, Fonseca V (2019) A model-based meta-analysis of 24 antihyperglycemic drugs for type 2 diabetes: comparison of treatment effects at therapeutic doses. Clin Pharmacol Ther 105(5):1213–1223. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1307
Zaccardi F, Htike ZZ, Webb DR, Khunti K, Davies MJ (2016) Benefits and harms of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatments: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 164(2):102–113. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-1432
Zaccardi F, Webb DR, Htike ZZ, Youssef D, Khunti K, Davies MJ (2016) Efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 18(8):783–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.12670
Amod A (2020) The place of sulfonylureas in guidelines: why are there differences? Diabetes Ther 11(1):5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-020-00811-3
Ahrén B (2007) DPP-4 inhibitors—clinical data and clinical implications. Diabetes Care 30(6):1344–1350
Van Gaal L, Scheen AJ (2002) Are all glitazones the same? Diabetes Metab Res Rev 18(Suppl 2):S1-4
Yao H, Zhang A, Li D et al (2024) Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 384:e076410. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076410
Inkster B, Zammitt NN, Frier BM (2012) Drug-induced hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes. Expert Opin Drug Saf 11(4):597–614. https://doi.org/10.1517/14740338.2012.694424
Andersen SE, Christensen M (2016) Hypoglycaemia when adding sulphonylurea to metformin: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 82(5):1291–1302. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13059
Hussein H, Zaccardi F, Khunti K et al (2020) Efficacy and tolerability of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 22(7):1035–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14008
Davidson MA, Mattison DR, Azoulay L, Krewski D (2018) Thiazolidinedione drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: past, present and future. Crit Rev Toxicol 48(1):52–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2017.1351420
Bin Rakhis SA Sr., AlDuwayhis NM, Aleid N, AlBarrak AN, Aloraini AA (2022) Glycemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: a systematic review. Cureus 14(6):e26180. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.26180
Aschner P, Gagliardino JJ, Ilkova H et al (2020) Persistent poor glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes in developing countries: 12 years of real-world evidence of the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS). Diabetologia 63(4):711–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-05078-3
Carls GS, Tuttle E, Tan RD et al (2017) Understanding the gap between efficacy in randomized controlled trials and effectiveness in real-world use of GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 40(11):1469–1478. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-2725
Paul SK, Klein K, Thorsted BL, Wolden ML, Khunti K (2015) Delay in treatment intensification increases the risks of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc Diabetol 14:100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-015-0260-x
Khunti S, Khunti K, Seidu S (2019) Therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes: prevalence, causes, consequences and methods to overcome inertia. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab 10:2042018819844694. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042018819844694
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank C. Rees (New Zealand), who provided medical writing support in the early stages of manuscript development on behalf of Springer Healthcare.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Funding
Medical writing support in the early stages of manuscript development, on behalf of Springer Healthcare, was funded by Servier.
Authors’ relationships and activities
KK is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (ARC EM) and the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and has served as a consultant or speaker for, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Oramed Pharmaceuticals, Roche and Applied Therapeutics. FZ has received consulting fees from Daiichi Sankyo. VM has received research or educational grants from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, LifeScan, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, USV, Dr. Reddy’s, Sun Pharma, Intas, Lupin, Glenmark, Zydus, Ipca, Torrent, Cipla, Biocon, Primus, Franco-Indian, Wockhardt, Emcure, Mankind, Medtronic, Fourrts, Apex, GSK and Alembic. PA has received honoraria or consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, Novartis and Sanofi and has participated in company-sponsored speakers bureaus for Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. JCNC has received grants through her institutions and personal fees for consultancy and lectures from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hua Medicine, Eli Lilly, Merck, MSD, Powder Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Viatris and Zuellig Pharma outside the submitted work. SC has received an honorarium from Servier. The authors declare that there are no other relationships or activities that might bias, or be perceived to bias, their work.
Contribution statement
KK and JC participated in the conception of the review and performed the literature searches. All authors were involved in the planning of the manuscript and read and contributed to writing all drafts of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version to be published.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Kamlesh Khunti and Francesco Zaccardi are joint first authors.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Khunti, K., Zaccardi, F., Amod, A. et al. Glycaemic control is still central in the hierarchy of priorities in type 2 diabetes management. Diabetologia (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-024-06254-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-024-06254-w