4.4.0.0 Set­ting and Mod­i­fy­ing A1C Goals

Nu­mer­ous fac­tors must be con­sid­ered when set­ting glycemic tar­gets. The ADA pro­pos­es gen­er­al tar­gets ap­pro­pri­ate for many pa­tients but em­pha­sizes the im­por­tance of in­di­vid­u­alization based on key pa­tient char­ac­ter­is­tics. Glycemic tar­gets must be in­di­vid­u­alized in the con­text of shared de­ci­sion mak­ing to ad­dress the needs and pref­er­ences of each pa­tient and the in­di­vid­u­al char­ac­ter­is­tics that influence risks and benefits of ther­a­py for each pa­tient.

The fac­tors to con­sid­er in in­di­vid­u­alizing goals are de­pict­ed in Fig­ure 6.1 is not de­signed to be ap­plied rigid­ly but to be used as a broad con­struct to guide clin­i­cal de­ci­sion mak­ing (40) in both type 1 and type 2 di­a­betes. More strin­gent con­trol (such as an A1C of 6.5% [48 mmol/‍mol] or <7% [53 mmol/‍mol]) may be rec­om­mend­ed if it can be achieved safe­ly and with ac­cept­able bur­den of ther­a­py and if life ex­pectan­cy is sufficient to reap benefits of tight con­trol. Less strin­gent con­trol (A1C up to 8% [64 mmol/‍mol]) may be rec­om­mend­ed if the life ex­pectan­cy of the pa­tient is such that the benefits of an in­ten­sive goal may not be re­al­ized, or if the risks and bur­dens out­weigh the po­ten­tial benefits. Se­vere or fre­quent hy­po­glycemia is an ab­so­lute in­di­ca­tion for the modification of treat­ment reg­i­mens, in­clud­ing set­ting high­er glycemic goals.

Di­a­betes is a chron­ic dis­ease that pro­gress­es over decades. Thus, a goal that might be ap­pro­pri­ate for an in­di­vid­u­al early in the course of the dis­ease may change over time. Newly di­ag­nosed pa­tients and/‍or those with­out co­mor­bidities that limit life ex­pectan­cy may benefit from in­ten­sive con­trol proven to pre­vent mi­crovas­cu­lar com­pli­ca­tions. Both DCCT/EDIC and UKPDS demon­strat­ed metabol­ic mem­o­ry, or a lega­cy ef­fect, in which a finite pe­ri­od of in­ten­sive con­trol yield­ed benefits that ex­tend­ed for decades after that con­trol ended. Thus, a finite pe­ri­od of in­ten­sive con­trol to near-‍nor­mal A1C may yield endur­ing benefits even if con­trol is sub­se­quent­ly dein­ten­sified as pa­tient char­ac­ter­is­tics change. Over time, co­mor­bidities may emerge, de­creas­ing life ex­pectan­cy and the po­ten­tial to reap benefits from in­ten­sive con­trol. Also, with longer du­ra­tion of dis­ease, di­a­betes may be­come more difficult to con­trol, with in­creas­ing risks and bur­dens of ther­a­py. Thus, A1C tar­gets should be reeval­u­ated over time to bal­ance the risks and benefits as pa­tient fac­tors change.

Rec­om­mend­ed glycemic tar­gets for many nonpreg­nant adults are shown in Table 6.2. The rec­om­men­da­tions in­clude blood glu­cose lev­els that ap­pear to cor­re­late with achieve­ment of an A1C of <7% (53 mmol/‍mol). The issue of prepran­di­al ver­sus postpran­di­al SMBG tar­gets is com­plex (41). El­e­vat­ed post-‍chal­lenge (2-h oral glu­cose tol­er­ance test) glu­cose val­ues have been as­so­ci­at­ed with in­creased car­dio­vas­cu­lar risk inde­pendent of fast­ing plas­ma glu­cose in some epi­demi­o­log­ic stud­ies, but in­ter­ven­tion tri­als have not shown post­prandial glu­cose to be a car­dio­vas­cu­lar risk fac­tor inde­pendent of A1C. In sub­jects with di­a­betes, sur­ro­gate mea­sures of vas­cu­lar pathol­o­gy, such as en­dothe­lial dys­func­tion, are neg­a­tive­ly af­fected by postpran­di­al hy­per­glycemia. It is clear that postpran­di­al hy­per­glycemia, like prepran­di­al hy­per­glycemia, con­tributes to el­e­vat­ed A1C lev­els, with its rel­a­tive con­tri­bu­tion being greater at A1C lev­els that are clos­er to 7% (53 mmol/‍mol). How­ev­er, out­come stud­ies have clear­ly shown A1C to be the pri­ma­ry pre­dic­tor of com­pli­ca­tions, and land­mark tri­als of glycemic con­trol such as the DCCT and UKPDS re­lied over­whelm­ing­ly on pre-‍pran­di­al SMBG. Ad­di­tion­al­ly, a ran­dom­ized con­trolled trial in pa­tients with known CVD found no CVD benefit of in­sulin reg­i­mens tar­geting postpran­di­al glu­cose com­pared with those tar­geting prepran­di­al glu­cose (42). There­fore, it is rea­son­able for postpran­di­al test­ing to be rec­om­mend­ed for in­di­vid­u­als who have pre­meal glu­cose val­ues with­in tar­get but have A1C val­ues above tar­get. Mea­sur­ing postpran­di­al plas­ma glu­cose 1–2 h after the start of a meal and using treat­ments aimed at re­duc­ing postpran­di­al plas­ma glu­cose val­ues to <180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/‍L) may help to lower A1C.

An anal­y­sis of data from 470 par­tic­i­pants in the ADAG study (237 with type 1 di­a­betes and 147 with type 2 di­a­betes) found that ac­tu­al av­er­age glu­cose lev­els as­so­ci­at­ed with con­ven­tion­al A1C tar­gets were high­er than older DCCT and ADA tar­gets (Table 6.1) (7,43). These find­ings sup­port that pre­meal glu­cose tar­gets may be re­laxed with­out un­der­min­ing over­all glycemic con­trol as mea­sured by A1C. These data prompt­ed the re­vi­sion in the ADA-‍rec­om­mend­ed pre­meal glu­cose tar­get to 80–130 mg/dL (4.4–7.2 mmol/‍L) but did not af­fect the def­i­ni­tion of hy­po­glycemia.

Table 6.2—Sum­ma­ry of glycemic rec­om­men­da­tions for many nonpreg­nant adults with di­a­betes

*More or less stringent glycemic goals may be appropriate for individual patients. Goals should be individualized based on duration of diabetes, age/life expectancy, comorbid conditions, known CVD or advanced microvascular complications, hypoglycemia unawareness, and individual patient considerations.
Postprandial glucose may be targeted if A1C goals are not met despite reaching preprandial glucose goals. Postprandial glucose measurements should be made 1–2 h after the beginning of the meal, generally peak levels in patients with diabetes.

Fig­ure 6.1 Approach to Individualization of Glycemic Targets

Figure 6.1—Depicted are patient and disease factors used to determine optimal A1C targets. Characteristics and predicaments toward the left justify more stringent efforts to lower A1C; those toward the right suggest less stringent efforts. A1C 7% = 53 mmol/mol. Adapted with permission from Inzucchi et al. (40).

For interactive tool, see here