📚 Part of the Diabetes Landmark Trials guide — every landmark trial in one place.
Series: Landmark Trials in Endocrinology & Metabolism | Study #24
Category: Type 2 Diabetes · Glycaemic Control | Design: Multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial | n: 11,140 | Follow-up: 5 years (median)
📋 Summary
Authors: ADVANCE Collaborative Group (Patel A et al.)
Journal: N Engl J Med 2008;358:2560–2572 | DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0802987
ADVANCE randomly assigned 11,140 patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk to intensive glucose control using gliclazide MR as the primary agent plus additional drugs as required to achieve an HbA1c of 6.5% or less, or standard glucose control. The mean HbA1c achieved was 6.5% in the intensive group versus 7.3% in the standard group after a median follow-up of 5 years. The co-primary endpoints were composites of major macrovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke) and major microvascular events (new or worsening nephropathy or retinopathy), assessed jointly and separately. The combined macrovascular and microvascular composite was reduced by intensive control (18.1% vs 20.0%; HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; p=0.01). The microvascular composite was significantly reduced (9.4% vs 10.9%; HR 0.86; 0.77 to 0.97; p=0.01), with the benefit driven primarily by a reduction in nephropathy (4.1% vs 5.2%; HR 0.79; 0.66 to 0.93; p=0.006). Retinopathy was not significantly reduced (p=0.50). The macrovascular composite alone was not significantly reduced (HR 0.94; 0.84 to 1.06; p=0.32), and cardiovascular death (HR 0.88; 0.74 to 1.04; p=0.12) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.93; 0.83 to 1.06; p=0.28) were also not significantly affected. Severe hypoglycaemia was significantly more common in the intensive group (2.7% vs 1.5%; HR 1.86; 1.42 to 2.40; p<0.001), though less frequent than in ACCORD.
📊 Key Findings
| Outcome | Intensive | Standard | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Combined macro + microvascular composite | 18.1% | 20.0% | HR 0.90 (0.82–0.98) · p=0.01 |
| Microvascular composite | 9.4% | 10.9% | HR 0.86 (0.77–0.97) · p=0.01 |
| Nephropathy | 4.1% | 5.2% | HR 0.79 (0.66–0.93) · p=0.006 · 21% RRR |
| Retinopathy | — | — | NS (p=0.50) |
| Macrovascular composite | — | — | HR 0.94 (0.84–1.06) · NS |
| All-cause mortality | — | — | HR 0.93 (0.83–1.06) · NS — no harm |
| HbA1c achieved | 6.5% | 7.3% | Difference −0.8% |
| Severe hypoglycaemia | 2.7% | 1.5% | HR 1.86 (1.42–2.40) · Increased risk |
ADVANCE
RCT · type 2 diabetes · 5 years
Gliclazide-based intensive control to HbA1c ≤6.5% cut nephropathy 21% and the microvascular composite 14% in high-risk type 2 diabetes, with no mortality harm — unlike ACCORD.
💬 Expert Commentary
ADVANCE and ACCORD were published simultaneously in the same issue of the New England Journal of Medicine in June 2008, and their contrasting mortality findings represent one of the most instructive juxtapositions in modern clinical trial literature. ACCORD found a significant 22% increase in mortality with intensive glucose lowering; ADVANCE found no mortality signal (HR 0.93; 0.83–1.06). Both trials targeted similar HbA1c levels (below 6.0% in ACCORD; below 6.5% in ADVANCE) in broadly similar populations with high cardiovascular risk, yet their mortality results diverged. The most plausible explanation for this divergence lies in how intensive glycaemia was achieved. ADVANCE used gliclazide MR as the central agent, a sulphonylurea associated with relatively low hypoglycaemia rates, and the severe hypoglycaemia rate was 2.7% over 5 years, far below the 10.5% rate in ACCORD. ACCORD used a polypharmacy strategy including rosiglitazone in many participants, with rapid and aggressive HbA1c reduction and substantially higher rates of severe hypoglycaemia.
The nephropathy benefit of 21% in ADVANCE, observed in a high-risk population with a relatively modest HbA1c differential of 0.8%, is clinically important and consistent with the gradient of glycaemia-nephropathy risk established in UKPDS 33. This renal benefit occurred without macrovascular benefit — a dissociation consistent with the idea that microvascular and macrovascular risk respond differently to the degree and speed of glycaemic improvement, and that macrovascular benefit from glucose lowering alone may require longer exposure, lower baseline risk, or earlier intervention in the disease course. ADVANCE, together with ACCORD and VADT, established the evidence base for what are now termed intensive glycaemic targets (below 7.0%) in younger patients without established CVD, and less intensive targets (7.0–8.0%) in older patients or those with long disease duration, established CVD, or high hypoglycaemia risk.
Limitations: Macrovascular endpoints were not significantly reduced. The population had long mean diabetes duration (approximately 8 years), which may limit the applicability of findings to newly diagnosed patients. Retinopathy was not significantly reduced despite nephropathy benefit. The study was funded by the NHMRC Australia and Servier.
🔑 BOTTOM LINE
ADVANCE demonstrated that intensive glucose control targeting HbA1c below 6.5% using a gliclazide-based strategy reduces nephropathy by 21% and the combined microvascular composite by 14% in high-risk type 2 diabetes, without the mortality hazard observed in ACCORD, distinguishing the mechanism and safety of gliclazide-based intensive therapy from the polypharmacy aggressive strategy that caused harm in the parallel trial.
⭐ Clinical Impact Rating: ●●●●○ Practice-changing (alongside ACCORD and VADT)