Benefits and harms of intensive glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes
BMJ 2019; 367 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5887 (Published 05 November 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;367:l5887All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editors
This article provides a timely discussion on the issue of intensive glycaemic control (GC) in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM).
I would like to draw readers' attention to the authors’ definition of “intensive glycemic control as a treatment strategy used to target HbA1c 6.5-7.0% (48-53 mmol/mol) or below, irrespective of the number and type of drugs used, and conventional glycemic control as targeting HbA1c above 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) but below 8.0-8.5 (64-69 mmol/mol).”
They concluded that “moderate glycemic targets, with HbA1c levels between 7% and 8% (53-63 mmol/mol), are adequate for most people with type 2 diabetes if this is achieved without symptomatic hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia and unless lower targets are easily achievable without treatment burden or adverse effects.”
The reason for my rapid response is to point out a disturbing trend of patients reporting being told by their GPs that they don’t need tight control of their blood glucose and it’s ok to have double digit blood glucose level (mmol/L), invariably their HbA1c is 9 or higher. I suspect that some doctors may have misinterpreted recent call to avoid hypoglycaemic episodes when pursuing intensive GC, as equivalent to tolerating poor GC and allowing GC to be less monitored. The idea of conventional (moderate) GC seemed to have been thrown out together with the bath water.
This kind of misconception not only puts patients with T2DM at risk of diabetic complications, it also particularly makes the discussion (with these patients) of adequate GC more difficult when it appears to be in direct conflict with what their GPs told them. This issue is particularly relevant when considering management of poorly controlled wound infections when the patient’s HBA1c is 11 for example, or when I have to advise patients with poor GC I cannot proceed with elective joint replacement due to unacceptably high peroperative risk.
I need to emphasise this misconception does not belong solely to primary care providers; many JMOs and even specialists mistake the message of not requiring intensive GC in T2DM conditions to meant that it’s ok not to watch blood glucose closely at all.
There are many instances I have found when diabetic nurse specialists, JMOs and even physicians tolerate blood glucose constantly above 12 for up to 20 for days before making an adequate attempt to address GC. Many do not even consider blood glucose control as a factor in the management of sepsis and wound infection, beyond just “getting the right antibiotics for the bug”.
It is time for the correct message to be broadcast to undo the mismanagement arising from the message “it’s ok not to do intensive GC”.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Benefits and harms of intensive glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes
the first reason of this comment is to congratulate with the Authors for this timely, complete and balanced review. I would hope to anticipate a correction of several misleading guidelines that still emphasise strict glucose control as a mantra of therapy of T2DM . A lower blood glucose target means more drugs, more controls, more expenses and more side effects and burden for society and Patients. May be it is time to change vision on glucose control: a moderate target should become a first choice and not a rescue strategy for higher values. Since high prevalence of T2DM consideration of cost should be mandatory in the choice of drug. Looking at SGLT2 I think that their prevalent action is a diuretic one and should be used in Patients with HF. The second reason of my comment is to raccomend to do not put together control of hyperglycaemia in hospital setting with every day life. No doubt that control of blood glucose and use of insulin are of critical importance for recovery of infected surgery Patients
Competing interests: No competing interests