NICE vs SIGN: Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2025)

Type 2 diabetes care in the UK is guided by NICE and, in Scotland, by SIGN. Both align closely on lifestyle as foundational therapy, metformin as first-line pharmacotherapy, and the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists for cardiometabolic benefit. Differences are subtle and often economic: NICE is explicit about cost-effectiveness thresholds and sequencing, while SIGN is broadly similar but sometimes emphasises cardiovascular outcomes more strongly.

See how this translates to practice: Explore our Clinical governance features, visit the Patient Safety Hub, or review Clinical Safety & Assurance for enterprise rollout.

This comparison outlines the key similarities and differences so clinicians can apply the right framing in practice. Links to official sources are included for verification.

Scope and orientation

NICE (NG28) provides England/Wales guidance with cost-conscious sequencing, focusing on lifestyle first, metformin first-line, and stepwise additions based on glycaemic control, comorbidities, and cost-effectiveness. It highlights when to consider SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs, especially in ASCVD, CKD, or heart failure.

SIGN mirrors these principles for Scotland, with a slightly stronger emphasis on cardiovascular outcomes when choosing second-line agents. It supports early use of cardioprotective therapies in high-risk patients, aligning with international evidence.

Practical takeaway: Clinically aligned; NICE may be more explicit about cost thresholds; SIGN leans into cardiovascular benefit framing.

Initial management

NICE

• Lifestyle interventions for all (diet, weight management, physical activity, smoking cessation).
• Metformin first-line unless contraindicated or not tolerated.
• Consider early SGLT2 inhibitor if heart failure or CKD risk is present, per updated guidance.

SIGN

• Similar lifestyle-first stance.
• Metformin first-line as standard.
• Strong emphasis on CV and renal outcomes when selecting add-on therapy; supportive of early SGLT2/GLP-1 in high-risk groups.

Escalation and agent choice

Both guidelines incorporate SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists for patients with established CVD, CKD, or heart failure, and for those needing additional weight loss or glycaemic control. The core difference is economic nuance: NICE highlights cost-effectiveness and local formulary considerations; SIGN is closely aligned but may frame decisions more around cardiometabolic benefit.

• Second-line options after metformin: SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 RA in high-risk patients; otherwise, consider DPP-4 inhibitor, TZD, SU, or SGLT2 per individual factors and cost.
• Weight and CV risk: Both favour agents with weight loss and CV benefit when indicated.
• CKD/HF: Both advocate SGLT2 inhibitors early in CKD/HF; SIGN’s tone may be more proactive, but choices are similar.

Monitoring and targets

Both recommend individualising HbA1c targets and regularly reviewing renal function, weight, hypoglycaemia risk, and comorbidities. NICE is explicit about reviewing every 3–6 months during treatment changes and annually once stable. SIGN aligns but underscores the cardiometabolic review and addressing global risk factors.

Practical flow you can apply

1. Start with lifestyle + metformin: Reassess tolerance and response.
2. Assess CV/renal risk: If ASCVD, CKD, or HF, add SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 RA with proven benefit.
3. Choose add-ons by need: Weight loss → GLP-1 RA; hypoglycaemia avoidance → DPP-4/SGLT2; cost/formulary may guide alternative choices (e.g., SU/TZD).
4. Monitor and adjust: HbA1c, weight, renal function, side effects; step up or switch based on response and tolerance.
5. Address global risk: Lipids, BP, smoking, weight; both guidelines stress comprehensive CV risk management.

FAQs: quick answers

Do NICE and SIGN differ on first-line? No—both start with lifestyle and metformin.

When to add SGLT2/GLP-1? Both recommend early use in ASCVD/CKD/HF or when weight loss and glycaemic control require them; NICE may be more cost-threshold explicit.

Are targets the same? Both individualise HbA1c targets; monitor every 3–6 months during changes.

What about cost? NICE emphasises cost-effectiveness and formulary constraints more directly; SIGN is aligned but leans into outcome benefits.

Which to cite? Use NICE for NHS England/Wales; SIGN for Scotland—clinical content is concordant.

Source links (official)

• NICE NG28 – Type 2 diabetes in adults
• SIGN – Diabetes guidance
• CliniSearch type 2 diabetes guideline page

Why this matters

Type 2 diabetes care is converging on cardiometabolic risk reduction alongside glycaemic control. NICE and SIGN are clinically aligned on lifestyle and metformin first, and on early use of SGLT2/GLP-1 in high-risk groups. Differences are mainly economic and phrasing. Knowing both helps clinicians align with local formulary rules while delivering evidence-based, outcome-focused care.