Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Biomedicines · October 22, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background: Diabetes management in patients with hematologic malignancies is challenging because of advanced age, multimorbidity, and cancer-related therapies. However, real-world evidence regarding glycemic control in this population remains limited. We aimed to evaluate glycemic control, glucose-lowering treatment patterns, and factors associated with tight glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and hematologic malignancies. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 86 adults treated at a tertiary university hematology department. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment data were extracted from medical records. Low measured glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was defined as HbA1c <6.5%. Associated factors were examined using exploratory multivariable logistic regression. Results: The mean age was 75.0 ± 11.6 years; 48 patients (55.8%) were men. Among the 80 patients with available HbA1c measurements, the median HbA1c was 6.6% (interquartile range 6.0–7.2), and 37 (46.3%) had HbA1c <6.5%. Exploratory regression analyses suggested higher odds of HbA1c <6.5% with higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002–1.055; p = 0.035) and lower odds with diabetic vascular complications (adjusted OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99; p = 0.048). At the alternative HbA1c threshold of <7.0%, corticosteroid exposure was associated with lower odds (adjusted OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13–0.98; p = 0.046). Fifteen patients (18.8%) had HbA1c <6.5% while receiving insulin and/or a sulfonylurea. Conclusions: Low HbA1c values were common in this cohort, including among patients receiving insulin and/or sulfonylureas. These findings describe low measured HbA1c and associated treatment patterns but do not establish unnecessarily intensive treatment, clinical inappropriateness, hypoglycemia, or treatment-related harm. Prospective studies incorporating individualized treatment targets and documented hypoglycemia are needed to clarify their clinical significance.