This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Diabetes Mellitus  • Neurology  • Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders, Other  • Treatment Adherence  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Ziemer and colleagues¹ demonstrate "clinical inertia" in the primary care treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. As a primary care provider, I would like to suggest another reason that many physicians failed to "do enough" to meet guideline targets: tight control in type 2 diabetes fails to show much benefit. The data from all relevant randomized controlled trials are presented in tabular form by the US Preventive Services Task Force.²

The vaunted reduction in microvascular events in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) consisted almost entirely of a reduction in laser treatment of the retina from 11 to 8 per 100 patient-years.² Except for the metformin arm of UKPDS, death rates were the same or higher in patients who were assigned to tight control. (All package inserts for sulfonylureas carry a black box warning, required by the Food and Drug Administration, about a doubling of cardiovascular death in treated . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Thomas E. Finucane, MD