Marge, 68-year-old female with type 2 diabetes, presents for her 3 month follow up visit with her primary care provider (PCP). She suspects that her hemoglobin A1c (A1c) is going to be up and is unsure of what exactly her goal A1c is after some particularly tough months emotionally and physically. She is nervous that her provider may recommend insulin, and her sister said that insulin is not safe. Marge is also curious whether one of these “GLP-1 agonists” might be good for her since her best friend (who also has type 2 diabetes) raves about her experience taking a GLP-1 agonist. She bravely enters her PCP’s office determined to face her A1c regardless of what her number is, and advocates for herself in the treatment decision making process. The office visit begins well, then her provider enters the room and shares Marge has an A1c of 10%.
Marge is not alone in her hesitation about insulin. Well-meaning friends and family weighing in on their opinion regarding the use of insulin can be a roadblock for providers. The goal is for any treatment decision to incorporate shared decision making where both the person with diabetes and their provider have a voice in the final treatment selection. The 2025 American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Standard 9 recommends GLP-1 agonist or dual GIP and GLP-1 agonist be considered in most individuals with type 2 diabetes prior to insulin. These standards also recommend insulin use in type 2 diabetes when A1c is at or above 10% of glucose is at or above 300 mg/dL. Marge has A1c of 10%. So for Marge and her provider what are considerations beyond A1c that can help guide the selection of GLP-1 agonist or insulin? What are the pros and cons of GLP-1 agonist versus?
Per the 2025 ADA Standards of Care, below are considerations when selecting therapy in type 2 diabetes. Historically, the focus for treatment of type 2 diabetes was primarily glucose goal achievement and maintenance however those days are long gone. The reduction of cardiovascular and kidney risk is now center stage as type 2 diabetes occurs on a cardiometabolic renal spectrum.
-Presence of or high risk for ASCVD
-Heart failure
-Chronic kidney disease
-Weight management
Pros (Benefits) | Cons (Side Effects) | |
GLP-1 agonists | -Effectively lowers glucose and hemoglobin A1c-Cardiovascular (reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in those with or high risk of cardiovascular disease) ** -Renal (reduce persistent eGFR reduction and cardiovascular death in those with T2DM and chronic kidney disease) ** – Liver (potential benefit in MASLD or MASH) ** – Weight loss | -Constipation or diarrhea -Nausea -Risk of pancreatitis -Risk of gallbladder disease -Risk of thyroid C-cell disease |
Insulin | -Effectively lowers glucose and hemoglobin A1c | -Weight gain -Hypoglycemia |
**Benefit varies based on individual GLP-1 agonists
Back to Marge, a bit more about her clinical history as she has had NSTEMI (myocardial infarction in 2020), stage 3a chronic kidney disease and BMI of 28. She is also interested in trying out a continuous glucose monitor as she is tired of pricking her finger. She is okay with injections but not any weight gain or low glucose values (as she lives alone). She and her PCP spend about 10 minutes going through pros and cons of insulin versus non-insulin injectable. They decide on a GLP-1 agonist in particular injectable semaglutide (Ozempic) due to the additional benefit considering her having CKD, established ASCVD and having elevated A1c. Oral semaglutide does not currently have the additional cardiometabolic renal indications. Per the 2025 ADA Standards of Care Standard 6, an appropriate goal A1c for Marge considering her multiple co-morbidities would be < 8%.
References:
Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2025. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Diabetes Care. 2025; 48 (supplement 1):S181-S206.
Glycemic Goals and Hypoglycemia: Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2025. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Diabetes Care. 2025; 48 (supplement 1):S128-S145.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebad8/ebad8a3f3c3179e70c8ffb0a08d5077ab8f67844" alt=""