I'm 100% convinced that "studies"
(and I use the term loosely) like this are simply pharmaceutical-company propaganda to keep us on meds. These are the same 'studies' used to create clinical guidelines pushed by the ADA, etc.
When my last A1c came in at 6.0% I mentioned to my medical team
(because of all my health problems, I see an Alberta Health 'Complex Care Team' on a monthly basis) that I wasn't really happy with this number, and was wanting to see it in the 5.x range. Two people on the team looked quite shocked at this, and started quoting CDA (Canadian Diabetes Association) guidelines about A1c control - who recommend that A1c be simply "< 7.0%" ... and then said that the "
research shows trying for lower than 7.0% is risky" ...
They were surprised when I said that not only had I read the CDA's "Clinical Practice Guidelines" but that I had also studied much of the research that they used in adopting those guidelines, and that what the committee stated was
(paraphrasing) 'that the absolute benefit of lowering A1C levels from 7.0 % is expected to be small and must be weighed against the risk of hypoglycemia.' ... And, since I don't run the risk of hypoglycemia (as I'm not on insulin) there WAS no risk for me.
I also went on to mention the same guideline document also stated that a Fasting Blood Glucose of >5.5 mmol/L
(99 for you good folks in the USA) was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events ... and with my wonderful family history of heart-disease
(EVERY male member of my family in the last four generations has had a cardiovascular event before the age of 50, some fatal), my own diabetes diagnosis and my high-normal blood pressure, that it would make sense to try for as tight control as possible.
The response? Blank stares. I kid you not.
Just love these 'studies'.
