You might want to read this critique of the study, you may not agree with all the authors points
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...ontrol-of.html
The bit you might be interested in is this graph...
Taken altogether the studies show no overall benefit to mortality, but what you will notice is a left to right shift in mortality as we travel through the studies. VADT and ACCORD come out above 1.0, although the VADT result should be read as no difference in mortality between treatment and placebo group. The ACCORD study does however show a significant increase in deaths.
What is interesting however is the following difference between VADT/ACCORD & UKPDS
Quote:
Junkfoodscience wrote
In fact, the meta-analysis found greater risks of dying among those with the most intensive pharmacological management of blood sugars. The two trials (VADT and ACCORD) showing the highest risks for overall deaths were on patients with the more advanced diseases (10-12 years from first diagnosed compared to 8 years in all but one* of the other trials). The patients also had the highest HbA1c levels at the start of the trials (9.4 - 8.3% compared to 7.9 - 7.1% in the other trials), meaning they also required more medications to bring their HbA1c levels below 7%. More intensive pharmacological management and advanced disease was associated with greater risks of dying.
|
caveat - these are the blogger's conclusions not the study authors, but however it is a serious challenge. If you have had type 2 for a long time and need lots of medication to attain an A1c below 7.0%, trying to keep it there might actually shorten your life. You might be better off aiming higher.
It would be nice if there was just a simple and straightforward answer <sigh>
Linear Mode
