Diabetes Self-Management Blog

Two famous studies showed that tight control of glucose did not cause a statistically significant reduction in heart attacks or early death. But roughly 20 years after the studies ended, tight control subjects are living longer and healthier than those who were in the comparison groups. What is going on?

This long-delayed benefit is called the “legacy effect.” It was found in follow-up of patients in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS).

I learned about the legacy effect in a symposium at the American Diabetes Association’s 74th Scientific Sessions in San Francisco on June 13.

DCCT included more than 1400 people with Type 1 diabetes and lasted from 1983 to 1993. Half of the participants worked for “intensive therapy,” defined as an A1C “as close to normal as possible,” that “included three or more daily insulin injections or a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, guided by four or more glucose tests daily.” Many achieved an A1C of 7.0 or less.

The other half had one to two insulin injections a day. Their A1C levels averaged close to 9.0. The intensive therapy lasted an average of 6.5 years.

The participants in the study have since been followed in the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study, which is still going on.

The intensive control group had immediate benefits. They had far less eye and kidney damage and less diabetic neuropathy (nerve damage that can cause sensations such as pain and numbness.) These are called “microvascular complications,” because the blood vessels in the eyes, kidneys, and nerves are small.

But they had no significant benefit in heart disease or stroke. These are called “macrovascular complications,” because the blood vessels in the heart and brain are large. The rates of heart attack, stroke, and death were the same in both groups at the study’s close in 1993. (According to researchers, at the time the study ended, it was still too soon to assess the impact on cardiovascular health.)

They’re not the same any more. According to the National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse:

More than 10 years after the DCCT ended, when both groups began receiving similar care (and had similar glucose levels), the benefits to the heart of the earlier treatment emerged. Moreover, the EDIC study found the benefits of tight glucose control on eye, kidney, and nerve problems persisted long after the DCCT ended. Researchers call the long-lasting benefit of tight control ‘metabolic memory.’

Same in Type 2
The UKPDS tried to do for Type 2 diabetes what DCCT had done for Type 1: show the effects of tight glucose control. UKPDS included about 5,000 recently diagnosed people with Type 2. Half were assigned to a tight control group, defined as a fasting blood sugar (FBS) below 108 mg/dl (6.0 mmol/ml). In practice, the tight control group had a median (midpoint) A1C of about 7.0.

Just as in DCCT, people receiving “intense control” had fewer eye, kidney, and nerve problems. But heart problems and strokes were no different for the two groups at the end of the study. After ten years, “no attempts were made to maintain previously assigned therapies,” and glucose levels in the two groups became similar. However, 15 years later, the tight control group has had far fewer cardiac events and a lower death rate.

What this means
What does the legacy effect mean for you? Mainly, that your heart, brain, and legs will benefit from gaining good glucose control as soon as you can. According to Colombian researchers, a few months of high glucose can deposit proteins called kinase C and nuclear factor κB in blood vessels. These proteins don’t easily go away and lead to more damage over the years.

So don’t wait. Complications can occur even before diabetes is diagnosed, because dangerously high levels can be balanced by low levels at other times. These variations can lead to an OK A1C level, even if you have elevated glucose levels much of the time.

There is a “lag time” between starting tight control and seeing advantages in your large blood vessels. Big arteries take time to clog up, and they take time to heal. Expect a 3–5 year wait before seeing cardiac benefits from tight control. Even after blood sugar levels become completely normal, it may take 5–10 years for your cardiac risk to return to those of a person without diabetes. But you should feel a lot better in the meantime. Your small vessels will be protected, and your big vessels will be healing.

Third, even if heart disease and stroke (macrovascular complications) are unchanged with better control, protecting the eyes and kidneys (microvascular complications) is well worth the effort. So is reducing neuropathy, which can involve sexual dysfunction.

Fourth, it’s important to know that the “tight control” in DCCT and UKPDS wasn’t that tight. It’s possible to do quite a bit better than an A1C of 7.0, as we’ve written about on this site here and here.

Finally, tight control in these studies came primarily from drugs, not from self-management or lifestyle changes. This is an important distinction and may account for why the benefits were not even greater.

More recent trials of tight control, such as ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes), ADVANCE (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease), and VADT (Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial) showed no cardiac advantage for tight control. But this failure may have been due to the harmful effects of the drugs used, not to the lower blood sugar levels. Probably, as the ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VADT groups are followed for decades, legacy effects will emerge for them, too, especially if they are controlling their diabetes with lifestyle.

No legacy for blood pressure treatment
Interestingly, in all trials to date, there has been no legacy effect and no lag time for blood pressure control. You are safer while you are keeping your pressure down. But if your pressure goes back up, your risk immediately returns.

Learn more about the differences between microvascular and macrovascular complications in this article from the journal Clinical Diabetes.


I posted an inspirational true story on my blog Reasons to Live, called “All is Well.” It’s at www.reasons2live.net — you might like it.


  1. Thank you for this article. I try to achieve tight control through lifestyle changes but was told by a doctor that studies showed that it made little difference.

    I always look forward to reading your blog entries - they are informative, thoughtful and well written.

    Posted by Consuelo |
  2. Consuelo,

    I totally disagree with your doctor about control through lifestyle changes making “little difference.” I think control achieved through healthier living makes MORE difference than that achieved with drugs (Not to say drugs are always wrong.) Keep up the good work.

    Posted by David Spero RN |
  3. I wouldn’t call an A1c of 7 tight control. Far from it. A 7 would result in an average blood sugar reading of roughly 155 mg/DL (8.6). Research shows any reading past 140 (7.8) is doing your body serious harm.

    Most normal people have an A1c below 5. I would call tight control somewhere below 5.5 for diabetics. This achievement is very possible, especially if you are using insulin and on a carb controlled diet. And yes it reverses a lot of previous damage. Surprisingly information how to get there is plentiful if you go looking for it…. and surprise again once you know how to do it, it just becomes part of living your life (yeah it’s a pita some times).

    You would have to wonder how these “tight control” tests might turn out if they followed a better science.

    Posted by JohnC |

Post a Comment

Note: All comments are moderated and there may be a delay in the publication of your comment. Please be on-topic and appropriate. Do not disclose personal information. Be respectful of other posters. Only post information that is correct and true to your knowledge. When referencing information that is not based on personal experience, please provide links to your sources. All commenters are considered to be nonmedical professionals unless explicitly stated otherwise. Promotion of your own or someone else's business or competing site is not allowed: Sharing links to sites that are relevant to the topic at hand is permitted, but advertising is not. Once submitted, comments cannot be modified or deleted by their authors. Comments that don't follow the guidelines above may be deleted without warning. Such actions are at the sole discretion of DiabetesSelfManagement.com. Comments are moderated Monday through Friday by the editors of DiabetesSelfManagement.com. The moderators are employees of Madavor Media, LLC., and do not report any conflicts of interest. A privacy policy setting forth our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of certain information relating to you and your use of this Web site can be found here. For more information, please read our Terms and Conditions.

Diabetic Complications
Statins May Reduce Risk of Nerve Damage, Other Diabetes Complications (09/18/14)
New Approach for Neuropathy Pain? (08/18/14)
Study Evaluating Treatment for Neuropathy Pain (07/08/14)

Diabetes Research
Can Grapefruit Juice Prevent Weight Gain, Increase Insulin Sensitivity? (10/16/14)
Low-Carb Diet Improves Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetes (10/07/14)
Long Hours at Low-Income Jobs Linked to Increased Diabetes Risk (10/02/14)
Statins May Reduce Risk of Nerve Damage, Other Diabetes Complications (09/18/14)



Disclaimer of Medical Advice: You understand that the blog posts and comments to such blog posts (whether posted by us, our agents or bloggers, or by users) do not constitute medical advice or recommendation of any kind, and you should not rely on any information contained in such posts or comments to replace consultations with your qualified health care professionals to meet your individual needs. The opinions and other information contained in the blog posts and comments do not reflect the opinions or positions of the Site Proprietor.