The gist seems to be that tight control early on exerts a lot of leverage over long term outcomes:
New research, particularly from the follow-up study of the DCCT, suggests that early interventions have positive repercussions later in life. “Twenty seven years later, this period of intensive control still impacted mortality and was able to benefit people,” says Dr. Katz. “Even though in the intervening period the two groups were really similar,” with respect to glycemic control.
(I was a bit confused by what was meant by “intensive” versus “conventional” insulin therapy, but in the original research article apparently it just means keeping A1C under 7—which I thought was fairly conventional.)
This bit caught me eye as well:
From the data presented in these articles, Dr. Katz and Dr. Laffel recognize that deaths occurring under the age of 50 are mainly the result of acute complications, like diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia, which are potentially preventable. These younger patients are likely juggling the many demands of type 1 diabetes as well as the demands of adulthood.
In other words, for a good long part of your life it’s not the cardio-vascular or renal complications of high BG that are liable to get you but the direct consequences of using (or failing to use enough) insulin, mainly because it’s hard enough to manage the regular pressures of adult life without the extra layer of complexity T1 lays on top of things.
Not exactly a huge surprise, either one of these findings, but still good to have them backed up by formal research. The plural of “anecdote” is not “data,” as they say…