Diabetes Clinical Outcomes: The Benchmarks Our Programme Is Modelled On
We do not quote in-house percentages, because the honest way to talk about outcomes is to point to the published trials our programme is built on and explain how outcomes are actually measured. This page sets out those benchmarks, how remission is formally defined, and the markers we track — so you can judge the programme against real science rather than marketing claims. Type 2 diabetes can go into remission, not cure, and results vary.
How remission is defined
The American Diabetes Association defines remission of type 2 diabetes as an A1c below 6.5% sustained for at least three months without glucose-lowering medication. This definition is deliberately precise for good reasons: remission is not the same as being cured, it can be lost if the changes that produced it lapse, and it is confirmed by a laboratory measure over time rather than by how you feel on any given day. Type 1 diabetes is autoimmune and is not reversible by lifestyle, although CGM and structured care still improve day-to-day control.
The trials we model against
Rather than asking you to trust an in-house figure, we borrow the structure of the strongest published trials in the field and track your own progress against what they established.
| Study | What it established |
|---|---|
| DiRECT (Lancet, 2018; 2019) | Structured weight management can produce remission, closely tied to sustained weight loss |
| Virta Health (2019) | Physician-supervised low-carbohydrate care with monitoring reduced A1c and medication over two years |
| DPP / DPPOS | Structured lifestyle change markedly reduces progression from prediabetes to diabetes |
| Look AHEAD | Intensive lifestyle intervention improved weight, fitness and control |
| UKPDS | Better glucose control reduces long-term complication risk |
| STEP / SURMOUNT | GLP-1 and dual-agonist medicines produce substantial weight loss |
Our programme reproduces the ingredients that made these trials work: monitoring, clinical supervision, weight loss where appropriate, and sustained support. We do not claim to have replicated any specific trial's exact numbers, because our population and setting differ.
How outcomes are measured
Meaningful outcomes are measured, not asserted. The core markers we track are the same ones used in the trials above:
- A1c: the anchor measure of average glucose and the basis of the remission definition.
- Time in range: the share of the day glucose stays within target, captured by CGM — a finer-grained view than A1c alone, and one that responds faster to change.
- Medication reduction: whether doses can be safely lowered, always under clinician supervision.
- Weight and waist circumference: strongly linked to the likelihood of remission.
- Cardiometabolic markers: blood pressure and lipids, because diabetes care is also cardiovascular care.
What realistic outcomes look like
The published evidence supports a hopeful but honest picture. Remission is achievable for a meaningful share of people who are caught early and who sustain significant weight loss, as DiRECT and Virta demonstrated. Many others who do not reach full remission still achieve better control, more time in range, and lower medication needs, all of which matter. And over the long term, better control lowers the risk of complications in the eyes, kidneys, nerves and heart, as UKPDS showed. Outcomes depend heavily on how early the disease is caught, how much weight is lost and kept off, and how consistently the plan is followed.
Why we avoid in-house percentages
Quoting a single headline remission rate would be misleading, because outcomes depend so heavily on who joins, how early, and how consistently they engage. A number drawn from one population may not describe you at all, and it is easy to cherry-pick a flattering figure. Instead of a statistic that cannot be verified from the outside, we show you the trials we are modelled on, track your own markers transparently in your dashboard, and project your personal trajectory from your own CGM and lab data so you can see your real progress rather than an average.
Time in range, explained
Time in range is one of the most useful modern outcome measures, and it complements A1c rather than replacing it. It describes the percentage of the day your glucose stays within an agreed target band, typically measured by a CGM. Two people can share the same A1c yet have very different time in range: one with steady, gentle glucose and another swinging between highs and lows that happen to average out. Because those swings themselves carry risk, seeing and reducing them is valuable. Time in range also responds within days, which makes it a far better week-to-week guide than an A1c you can only check every few months.
A note on safety
Better outcomes must never come at the cost of safety. As glucose falls, medication that was once appropriate can start to cause lows, so any reduction is made by your clinician in step with your data. Outcome tracking is therefore also a safety tool: watching your trajectory lets your team lower medication at the right moment rather than too early or too late. Never interpret improving numbers as permission to change a medicine yourself.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is your remission rate?
We deliberately do not publish an in-house rate, because it would be uninformative for any individual and easy to misrepresent. We track your own A1c, time in range, weight and medication load against the trial benchmarks above.
Is time in range better than A1c?
They are complementary. A1c is the long-term average and defines remission; time in range shows day-to-day control and responds faster to change, so both are useful together.
How is medication reduction handled?
Only by your clinician. As glucose improves, doses may be safely lowered to prevent lows; you should never adjust medication yourself.
Do these trial results apply to me?
They set realistic expectations rather than promises. Your outcome depends on your starting point, how early you act, and your adherence, so results vary.