Evidence mapPaperPMID 37891565Full record

ArticleCardiovascular diabetology2023

Glycemic control, HbA1c variability, and major cardiovascular adverse outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients with elevated cardiovascular risk: insights from the ACCORD study.

Junyu Pei, Xiaopu Wang, Zeyu Pei, Xinqun Hu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Additive Effects of Quercetin-RichPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Junyu Pei *Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Xiaopu Wang *The Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, Cumming school of Medicine, The University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Zeyu PeiChina Power International Development Limited, Hong Kong, China.
Xinqun HuDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China. huxinqun@csu.edu.cn.
University of Calgary · CASecond Xiangya Hospital of Central South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough recent guidelines advocate for HbA1c target individualization, a comprehensive criterion for patient categorization remains absent. This study aimed to categorize HbA1c variability levels and explore the relationship between glycemic control, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality across different degrees of variability.

methodsAction to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes study data were used. HbA1c variability was measured using the HbA1c variability score (HVS) and standard deviation (SD). K-means and K-medians clustering were used to combine the HVS and SD.

resultsK-means clustering was the most stable algorithm with the lowest clustering similarities. In the low variability group, intensive glucose-lowering treatment significantly reduced the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (HR: 0·78 [95% CI: 0·63, 0·97]) without increasing mortality risk (HR: 1·07 [0.81, 1·42]); the risk of adverse cardiovascular events (HR: 1·33 [1·14, 1·56]) and all-cause mortality (HR: 1·23 [1·01,1·51]) increased with increasing mean HbA1c. In the high variability group, treatment increased the risk of cardiovascular events (HR: 2.00 [1·54, 2·60]) and mortality (HR: 2·20 [1·66, 2·92]); a higher mean HbA1c (7·86%, [7·66%, 8·06%]) had the lowest mortality risk, when the mean HbA1c was < 7·86%, a higher mean HbA1c was associated with a lower mortality risk (HR: 0·63 [0·42, 0·95]). In the medium variability group, a mean HbA1c around 7·5% was associated with the lowest risk.

conclusionsHbA1c variability can guide glycemic control targets for patients with type 2 diabetes. For patients with low variability, the lower the HbA1c, the lower the risk. For those with medium variability, controlling HbA1c at 7·5% provides the maximum benefit. For patients with high variability, a mean HbA1c of around 7·8% presents the lowest risk of all-cause mortality, a lower HbA1c did not provide cardiovascular benefits but instead increased the mortality risk. Further studies, especially those with patients that reflect the general population with type 2 diabetes undergoing the latest therapeutic approaches, are essential to validate the conclusions of this study.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Blood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinGlycemic ControlHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansRisk FactorsBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinHbA1c variabilityIntensive blood glucose treatmentMachine learning algorithmsMean HbA1c

Identifiers

PMID37891565
PMCPMC10612188
OpenAlexW4387976774

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.