POEMs
Patient-Oriented Evidence That Matters

American College of Physicians Reaffirms De-emphasis on Glucose Control and Adds New Treatments for Type 2 Diabetes

Allen F. Shaughnessy, PharmD

American Family Physician. 2026;113(5):501-502.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial relationships.

CLINICAL QUESTION

According to the American College of Physicians, what is the role of newer medicines for type 2 diabetes?

BOTTOM LINE

Continuing to be ahead of the curve compared with other professional societies, the American College of Physicians published the guideline to reaffirm an A1C goal of 7% to 8% for most people with type 2 diabetes. Rather than focusing solely on blood glucose control, they also suggest adding newer treatments, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors (eg, dapagliflozin [Farxiga], empagliflozin [Jardiance]) or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (eg, liraglutide [Victoza], semaglutide [Ozempic]), for most patients because of their demonstrated benefit on morbidity and mortality, with the choice of treatment based on comorbidity. The guideline recommends against using dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors because of a lack of demonstrated benefit on morbidity and all-cause mortality. (Level of Evidence = 5)

SYNOPSIS

The guideline from the American College of Physicians updates its 2017 recommendations for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and considers the role of newer treatments that have demonstrated benefit on all-cause mortality and morbidity. The authors reiterate that the goal of long-term blood glucose control is an A1C level of 7% to 8%, with the specific number individualized to patients based on their goals, comorbidities, life expectancy, and risks associated with hypoglycemia. Glucose control should be relaxed in patients with an A1C level of less than 6.5%. The guideline continues to recommend metformin as first-line therapy, with early addition of an SGLT-2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist (strong recommendation and high-certainty evidence). Based on evidence of no benefit—or perhaps increased morbidity—the authors do not recommend routine treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors (strong recommendation and high-certainty evidence). The guideline is based on a systematic review of recent literature by a working group without intellectual, professional, or financial conflicts of interest. The group included internists, an epidemiologist, and a panel of public members.

Study design: Practice guideline

Funding source: Self-funded or unfunded

Setting: Various (guideline)

Reference: Qaseem A, Obley AJ, Shamliyan T, et al.; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Newer pharmacologic treatments in adults with type 2 diabetes: a clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177(5):658-666.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Shaughnessy is an assistant medical editor for AFP.

Allen F. Shaughnessy, PharmD, MMedEd

Author disclosure: No relevant financial relationships.

POEMs (patient-oriented evidence that matters) are provided by Essential Evidence Plus, a point-of-care clinical decision support system published by Wiley-Blackwell. For more information, see http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com. Copyright Wiley-Blackwell. Used with permission.

For definitions of levels of evidence used in POEMs, see https://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/Home/Loe.

Primary Care Update, a free podcast focused on POEMs, is available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This series is coordinated by Natasha J. Pyzocha, DO, contributing editor.

A collection of POEMs published in AFP is available at https://www.aafp.org/afp/poems.

Copyright © 2026 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.

This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. See permissions for copyright questions and/or permission requests.