 |
 |

The Dogma of "Tight Control": Beyond the Limits of Evidence
 |
 |
| 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
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTER
The Dogma of "Tight Control": Beyond the Limits of EvidenceReply
David C. Ziemer and Lawrence S. Phillips
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(15):1672.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
An Intervention to Overcome Clinical Inertia and Improve Diabetes Mellitus Control in a Primary Care Setting: Improving Primary Care of African Americans With Diabetes (IPCAAD) 8
David C. Ziemer, Joyce P. Doyle, Catherine S. Barnes, William T. Branch, Jr, Curtiss B. Cook, Imad M. El-Kebbi, Daniel L. Gallina, Paul Kolm, Mary K. Rhee, and Lawrence S. Phillips
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(5):507-513.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|