Efficacy and safety of intensive versus conventional glucose targets in people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Objective

The aim of study is to re-evaluate the risk-benefits of intensive glycemic control in the context of multi-factorial intervention in adults with T2D.

Methods

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and CINHAL for randomized control trials comparing standard glucose targets to intensive glucose targets with pre-specified HbA_1clevels. Subgroup analysis was also performed to account for the inclusion of glucose only versus multi-factorial intervention trials. Results are reported as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Fifty-seven publications including 19 trials were included. Compared to conventional glycemic control, intensive glycemic control decreased the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.8, 0.7-0.91), macroalbuminuria (0.72, 0.5­–0.87), microalbuminuria (0.67, 0.52–0.85), major amputation (0.6, 0.38–0.96), retinopathy (0.75 ,0.63–0.9), and nephropathy (0.78, 0.63–0.97). The risk of hypoglycemia increased with intensive glycemic control than conventional treatment (2.04, 1.34–3.1). No reduction in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality was observed. However, in the context of multifactorial intervention, intensive glucose control was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (0.74, 0.57–0.95).

Conclusion

Targeting HbA_1c levels should be individualized based on the clinical status, balancing risks and benefits and potential risk for developing these complications among people with T2D.

KEYWORDS:

• Intensive
• conventional
• multifactorial
• all-cause mortality
• microvascular
• macrovascular

Declarations

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/17446651.2023.2166489

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.