Targets for Glycemic Control

Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee

S. Ali Imran MBBS, FRCP(Edin), FRCPC Rémi Rabasa-Lhoret MD, PhD Stuart Ross MB, ChB, FRACP, FRCPC

  • Key Messages
  • Recommendations
  • Figures
  • Full Text
  • References

Chapter Headings

Key Messages

  • Optimal glycemic control is fundamental to the management of diabetes.
  • Both fasting and postprandial plasma glucose levels correlate with the risk of complications and contribute to the measured glycated hemoglobin (A1C) value.
  • Glycemic targets should be individualized based on the individual’s age, duration of diabetes, risk of severe hypoglycemia, presence or absence of cardiovascular disease and life expectancy.


Optimal glycemic control is fundamental to the management of diabetes. In epidemiological analyses, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels >7.0% are associated with a significantly increased risk of both microvascular and macrovascular complications, regardless of underlying treatment (1–3). Data from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT; type 1 diabetes) (2) and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS; type 2 diabetes) (3) demonstrated a continuous relationship between A1C and diabetes complications, with no apparent threshold of benefit. In the DCCT, a 10% reduction in A1C was associated with a 40% to 50% lower risk of retinopathy progression, although the absolute reduction in risk was substantially less at lower A1C levels (2). In the UKPDS, this relationship was directly linear, with each 1.0% (absolute) reduction in mean A1C associated with a 37% decline in the risk of microvascular complications, a 14% lower rate of myocardial infarction (MI) and a 21% reduction in deaths from diabetes (3).

Both fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) are directly correlated to the risk of complications, with some evidence that postprandial might constitute a stronger risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) complications (4–9). In a meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies, FPG >5.6 mmol/L was associated with an increased risk of CV events (10). Postprandial hyperglycemia and the 2-hour post-challenge PG appears to be a better predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality than FPG (7). This association between CVD and 2-hour postprandial PG appears to be linear (6,7). Values >7.8 mmol/L are associated with an increase in all-cause mortality (8), and values >10.0 mmol/L are associated with both microvascular complications (11) and the highest risk of MI (12).

There is compelling evidence from randomized controlled studies that improved glycemic control reduces the risk of microvascular complications but has no significant effect on macrovascular outcomes in recently diagnosed type 1 (13) and type 2 diabetes (1,11,14), as well as more long-standing type 2 diabetes (15–19). The initial prospective randomized controlled trials were conducted in patients with recently diagnosed diabetes. These trials—the DCCT in type 1 diabetes (13) and the Kumamoto (11) and the UKPDS (1,14) in type 2 diabetes—confirmed that improved glycemic control significantly reduced the risk of microvascular complications but had no significant effect on macrovascular (particularly CV) outcomes. Subsequent observational data from long-term follow-up of both the DCCT and UKPDS cohorts showed a persistence of significant microvascular benefits in patients who had previously been in the intensively treated groups despite the fact that, during the subsequent follow-up period, their glycemic control became similar to that of patients who were previously in the standard arm (20–22). The follow-up data from these 2 studies also demonstrated a beneficial effect of improved glycemic control on CV outcomes. In the DCCT cohort, there was a significant reduction in CV outcomes (42%) as well as non-fatal MI, stroke and CV death (57%) in previously intensively treated patients compared with those who were previously in the standard arm (23). Similarly, there was a significant reduction in MI (15%–33%) and all-cause mortality (13%–27%) in the UKPDS cohort in patients who had been originally randomized to intensive treatment (22).

Three major trials—the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD), Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE), and Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)—looked at the effect of intensive glycemic control on patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes. The ACCORD trial randomly assigned 10 251 patients to intensive therapy targeting an A1C <6.0% or standard therapy targeting an AIC level of 7.0% to 7.9% (17,24). Patients included had either a previous history of CVD or multiple risk factors for CVD, and a baseline A1C level ≥7.5%. At inclusion, participants had a mean age of 62 years, diabetes duration of 10 years and a median baseline A1C level of 8.1%. A difference in A1C was rapidly obtained and maintained throughout the trial at 6.4% and 7.5% in the intensive and standard therapy groups, respectively. The primary outcome of this study was a composite of major CV events: non-fatal MI, nonfatal stroke or death from CV causes. The intensive glucose control arm was prematurely terminated after 3.5 years due to higher mortality associated with assignment to this treatment (17,24).

The ADVANCE trial randomly assigned 11 140 patients to standard (targeting A1C based on local guidelines) or intensive glucose control therapy aimed at reducing A1C levels to ≤6.5% (15). Patients were at least 55 years old with a history of major macrovascular or microvascular disease or at least 1 other risk factor for vascular disease. Median baseline A1C level and diabetes duration were lower than in the ACCORD trial at 7.2% and 8 years, respectively, whereas mean age was slightly higher at 66 years. The difference in A1C in both arms was obtained less rapidly, and, after a 5-year follow-up, mean A1C was 6.5% in the intensive group and 7.3% in the standard group. The primary outcome in the ADVANCE trial was a composite of microvascular events (nephropathy and retinopathy) and macrovascular disease defined by major adverse CV events.

VADT randomly assigned 1791 United States military veterans with poor glycemic control (≥7.5%) to either standard or intensive glucose therapy, which aimed for an overall reduction in A1C levels by 1.5%(18,19). Following a median follow-up of 5.6 years, A1C levels were 8.4% and 6.9% in the standard and intensive therapy groups, respectively. The primary outcome of the study was the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a major CV event(18,19).

These 3 trials confirmed the benefit of intensive glycemic control on microvascular outcomes. In the VADT study, the progression to albuminuria was significantly reduced in the intensive-treatment patients, with 9.1% of patients having significantly reduced progression compared to 13.8% in the standard therapy group(19). Similarly, intensive therapy in ACCORD patients showed a favourable effect on microvascular outcomes, particularly albuminuria and diabetic retinopathy (16). In ADVANCE, patients in the intensive control group demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of major microvascular events, mainly through a 21% relative reduction in nephropathy (15). A recent meta-analysis confirmed the positive impact of intensive glycemic control on microalbuminuria (25).

None of the above studies independently confirmed a significant benefit of tight glycemic control on macrovascular outcomes. However, meta-analysis of clinical trials designed to assess differences in CV outcomes in patients who had achieved lower versus higher levels of glycemia demonstrated that those treated with more intensive therapy, compared to less intensive glycemic control, were found to have a 10% to 15% reduction in the risk of major CV events, primarily because of a 15% reduced risk of MI, but with no effect on stroke, CV death or all cause mortality (26). Intensive glycemic control, however, was associated with more than a 2-fold increase in the risk of severe hypoglycemia (25).

The unexpected higher mortality rates seen in the intensive arm of the ACCORD study and the lack of clear macrovascular benefit in the ADVANCE and VADT trials have been further reviewed. Several potential reasons for these findings have been suggested, including patient age, duration of diabetes, presence of CVD, history of severe hypoglycemic events, weight gain and the rapid decrease in A1C values. Increased mortality associated with intensive treatment could not be explained by the type of pharmacological treatment, rapidity to implement the intensive strategy or weight gain (24). Hypothesis-generating secondary analysis from the ACCORD trial reported a nonsignificant trend toward lower all-cause mortality in individuals assigned to the standard arm who were younger than 65 years at baseline (27). Similarly, the ADVANCE trial also reported a nonsignificant trend toward fewer events among younger patients in the intensive therapy group (15). Duration of diabetes also may have played a role. Compared with the UKPDS and the DCCT, which were conducted in younger individuals with recent-onset diabetes, the duration of diabetes in the ACCORD, ADVANCE and VADT trials ranged from 8 to 11.5 years. Further emphasis of the importance of duration of diabetes was identified in a substudy of the VADT patients when measurement of the coronary calcium score, utilizing computed tomography, revealed fewer CVD events in these younger patients enrolled in the intensive treatment arm (28). The frequency of severe hypoglycemia in these trials was 2 to 3 times higher in the intensive therapy groups, and a higher mortality was reported in participants with 1 or more episodes of severe hypoglycemia in both the ACCORD (29) and the ADVANCE (30) trials, irrespective of the different treatment arms in which individual patients were allocated. However, these subanalyses confirmed that hypoglycemic events could not account for the difference in mortality between the intensive and standard therapy groups. Finally, in the ACCORD trial, mortality was increased in patients randomized in the intensive arm but who failed to reduce their A1C despite treatment intensification (31).

These findings suggest that microvascular and macrovascular events may be reduced by intensifying therapy targeting an A1C <7.0% in younger patients with recently diagnosed diabetes and a lower initial A1C value but with an increased risk of hypoglycemic risk. Individualized and higher A1C targets may be indicated in older type 2 patients with longer duration of diabetes, established CV risk factors, severe hypoglycemia episodes and/or without A1C reduction despite treatment intensification. Similarly, individualization of A1C targets may be needed in some patients with type 1 diabetes who are unable to achieve an A1C <7.0% without being at increased risk of severe hypoglycemia.

It also must be recognized that A1C measurement is a component of both the FPG and PPG. When A1C values are higher, the major contribution is the FPG levels, but as the A1C value approaches the target value of ≤7.0%, there is a greater contribution from PPG values (32,33). Another study using continuous glucose monitoring demonstrated that a 2-hour postprandial PG <8.0 mmol/L correlates best with A1C <7.0% (34). In view of this, if A1C targets cannot be achieved with a postprandial target of 5.0 to 10.0 mmol/L, further postprandial BG lowering to 5.0 to 8.0 mmol/L can be considered. The role of pre- vs. postprandial glucose control on reducing CV outcomes has been controversial (35,36).

A major difficulty in attempting to use evidence-based observations to determine the value of tighter postprandial glucose control has been the lack of well-designed, long-term outcome studies where assessing postprandial glucose values is the major objective of the study. Most of the large outcome trials conducted so far have been mostly based on preprandial glucose and A1C targets. Although there is evidence in type 2 diabetes that targeting postprandial hyperglycemia to <8.0 mmol/L reduces progression of carotid atherosclerosis (35) , a randomized controlled trial of type 2 diabetes patients treated with insulin therapy after acute MI showed no benefit of insulin regimen targeting postprandial hyperglycemia compared with the regimen targeting preprandial glucose (36).

Figure 1
Recommended targets for glycemic control.


Contrasting results from recent studies should not discourage physicians from controlling blood glucose levels. Intensive glucose control, lowering A1C values to ≤7% in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, provides strong benefits for microvascular complications and, if achieved early in the disease, might also provide a significant macrovascular benefit, especially as part of a multifactorial treatment approach. More intensive glucose control, A1C ≤6.5%, may be sought in patients with a shorter duration of diabetes, no evidence of significant CVD and longer life expectancy, provided this does not result in a significant increase in hypoglycemia. An A1C target ≤8.5% may be more appropriate in type 1 and type 2 patients with limited life expectancy, higher level of functional dependency, a history of severe hypoglycemia, advanced comorbidities, and a failure to attain established glucose targets despite treatment intensification ( Figure 1).


  1. 1. Glycemic targets should be individualized based on age, duration of diabetes, risk of severe hypoglycemia, presence or absence of cardiovascular disease, and life expectancy [Grade D, Consensus].
  2. 2. Therapy in most individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes should be targeted to achieve an A1C ≤7.0% in order to reduce the risk of microvascular [Grade A, Level 1A (1,2) ] and, if implemented early in the course of disease, macrovascular complications [Grade B, Level 3 (22,23) ].
  3. 3. An A1C ≤6.5% may be targeted in some patients with type 2 diabetes to further lower the risk of nephropathy [Grade A, Level 1 (15) ] and retinopathy [Grade A, Level 1 (24) , but this must be balanced against the risk of hypoglycemia [Grade A, Level 1 (15) ].
  4. 4. Less stringent A1C targets (7.1%–8.5% in most cases) may be appropriate in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with any of the following [Grade D, Consensus]:
    • a) Limited life expectancy
    • b) High level of functional dependency
    • c) Extensive coronary artery disease at high risk of ischemic events
    • d) Multiple comorbidities
    • e) History of recurrent severe hypoglycemia
    • f) Hypoglycemia unawareness
    • g) Longstanding diabetes for whom it is difficult to achieve an A1C ≤7.0% despite effective doses of multiple antihyperglycemic agents, including intensified basal-bolus insulin therapy
  • 5. In order to achieve an A1C ≤7.0%, people with diabetes should aim for:
    • FPG or preprandial PG target of 4.0–7.0 mmol/L and a 2-hour PPG target of 5.0–10.0 mmol/L [Grade B, Level 2 (2) for type 1; Grade B, Level 2 (1,11) for type 2 diabetes].
    • If an A1C target ≤7.0% cannot be achieved with a PPG target of 5.0–10.0 mmol/L, further PPG lowering to 5.0–8.0 mmol/L should be achieved [Grade D, Consensus, for type 1 diabetes; Grade D, Level 4 (32,33) for type 2 diabetes].

A1C, glycated hemoglobin; BG, blood glucose; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; PG, plasma glucose; PPG, postprandial plasma glucose.


  1. 1 UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33) Lancet 352 1998 837 853
  2. 2 The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group The relationship of glycemic exposure (HbA1c) to the risk of development and progression of retinopathy in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Diabetes 44 1995 968 983
  3. 3 I.M. Stratton A.I. Adler H.A.W. Neil Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study BMJ 321 2000 405 412
  4. 4 F.J. Service P.C. O'Brien The relation of glycaemia to the risk of development and progression of retinopathy in the Diabetic Control and Complications Trial Diabetologia 44 2001 1215 1220
  5. 5 M. Coutinho H.C. Gerstein Y. Wang The relationship between glucose and incident cardiovascular events. A metaregression analysis of published data from 20 studies of 95,783 individuals followed for 12.4 years Diabetes Care 22 1999 233 240
  6. 6 E.B. Levitan Y. Song E.S. Ford Is nondiabetic hyperglycemia a risk factor for cardiovascular disease? Arch Intern Med 164 2004 2147 2155
  7. 7 DECODE Study Group, European Diabetes Epidemiology Group Is current definition for diabetes relevant to mortality risk from all causes and cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes? Diabetes Care 26 2003 688 696
  8. 8 J.D. Sorkin D.C. Muller J.L. Fleg The relation of fasting and 2-h postchallenge plasma glucose to mortality: data from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging with a critical review of the literature Diabetes Care 28 2005 2626 2632
  9. 9 F. Cavalot A. Pagliarino M. Valle Postprandial blood glucose predicts cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes in a 14-year follow-up: lessons from the San Luigi Gonzaga Diabetes Study Diabetes Care 34 2011 2237 2243
  10. 10 The Emerging Risk Factor Collaboration Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies Lancet 375 2010 2215 2222
  11. 11 Y. Ohkubo H. Kishikawa E. Araki Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study Diabetes Res Clin Pract 28 1995 103 117
  12. 12 M. Hanefeld S. Fischer U. Julius Risk factors for myocardial infarction and death in newly detected NIDDM: the Diabetes Intervention Study, 11-year follow-up Diabetologia 39 1996 1577 1583
  13. 13 The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus N Engl J Med 329 1993 977 986
  14. 14 United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Effect of intensive blood glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34) Lancet 352 1998 854 865
  15. 15 The ADVANCE Collaborative Group Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes N Engl J Med 358 2008 2560 2572
  16. 16 F. Ismail-Beigi T. Craven M.A. Banerji ACCORD Trial Group Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomized trial Lancet 376 2010 419 430
  17. 17 The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes N Eng J Med 358 2008 2545 2559
  18. 18 W. Duckworth C. Abraira T. Moritz VADT Investigators Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes N Engl J Med 360 2009 129 139
  19. 19 T. Moritz W. Duckworth C. Abraira Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial: corrections N Engl J Med 361 2009 1024 1025
  20. 20 The Writing Team for the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial / Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Research Group Effects of intensive therapy on the microvascular complications of type 1 diabetes mellitus JAMA 287 2002 2563 2569
  21. 21 C.L. Martin J. Albers W.H. Herman Neuropathy among the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial cohort 8 Years after trial completion Diabetes Care 29 2006 340 344
  22. 22 R.R. Holman S.K. Paul M.A. Bethel 10-Year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes N Engl J Med 359 2008 1577 1589
  23. 23 D.M. Nathan P.A. Cleary J.Y. Backlund Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes N Eng J Med 353 2005 2643 2653
  24. 24 The ACCORD Study Group and ACCORD Eye Study Group Effects of medical therapies on retinopathy progression in type 2 diabetes N Engl J Med 363 2010 233 244
  25. 25 R. Boussageon T. Bejan-Angoulvant M. Saadatian-Elahi Effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and microvascular events in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials BMJ 343 2011 d4169
  26. 26 B. Hemmingsen S.S. Lund C. Gluud Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6 2011 CD008143
  27. 27 J. Calles-Escandón L.C. Lovato D.G. Simons-Morton Effect of intensive compared with standard glycemia treatment strategies on mortality by baseline subgroup characteristics: the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial Diabetes Care 33 2010 721 727
  28. 28 P.D. Reaven T.E. Moritz D.C. Schwenke Intensive glucose-lowering therapy reduces cardiovascular disease events in veterans affairs diabetes trial participants with lower calcified coronary atherosclerosis Diabetes 58 2009 2642 2648
  29. 29 D.E. Bonds M.E. Miller R.M. Bergenstal The association between symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia and mortality in type 2 diabetes: retrospective epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study BMJ 340 2010 4909
  30. 30 S. Zoungas A. Patel J. Chalmers Severe hypoglycemia and risks of vascular events and death N Eng J Med 363 2010 1410 1418
  31. 31 M.C. Riddle W.T. Ambrosius D.J. Brillo Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Investigators Epidemiologic relationships between A1C and all-cause mortality during a median 3.4-year follow-up of glycemic treatment in the ACCORD trial Diabetes Care 33 2010 983 990
  32. 32 L. Monnier H. Lapinski C. Colette Contributions of fasting and postprandial plasma glucose increments to the overall diurnal hyperglycemia of type 2 diabetic patients: variations with increasing levels of HbA1c Diabetes Care 26 2003 881 885
  33. 33 H.H.J. Woerle C. Neumann S. Zschau Impact of fasting and postprandial glycemia on overall glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Importance of postprandial glycemia to achieve target HbA1c levels Diabetes Res Clin Pract 77 2007 280 285
  34. 34 L. Monnier C. Colette G.J. Dunseath The loss of postprandial glycemic control precedes stepwise deterioration of fasting with worsening diabetes Diabetes Care 30 2007 263 269
  35. 35 K. Esposito D. Giugliano F. Nappo Campanian Postprandial Hyperglycemia Study Group Regression of carotid atherosclerosis by control of postprandial hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus Circulation 110 2004 214 219
  36. 36 I. Raz P.W.F. Wilson K. Strojek Effects of prandial versus fasting glycemia on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 Diabetes: the HEART2D trial Diabetes Care 32 2009 381 386
Reproduced with permission from Canadian Journal of Diabetes © 2013 Canadian Diabetes Association. To cite this article, please refer to For citation.

*The Canadian Diabetes Association is the registered owner of the name Diabetes Canada. All content on, CPG Apps and in our online store remains exactly the same. For questions, contact