Simplification of Insulin Regimen in Older Adults and Risk of Hypoglycemia

A National Survey of Physicians' Views on the Importance and Implementation of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend deintensifying hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c is below their individualized target, but this rarely occurs in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To understand physicians' decision-making around deintensifying diabetes treatment.

DESIGN

National physician survey.

PARTICIPANTS

US physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology providing outpatient diabetes care.

MAIN MEASURES

Physicians rated the importance of deintensifying diabetes medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes, and of switching medication classes, on 5-point Likert scales. They reported the frequency of these actions for their patients, and listed important barriers and facilitators. We evaluated the independent association between physicians' professional and practice characteristics and the importance of deintensifying and switching diabetes medications using multivariable ordered logistic regression models.

KEY RESULTS

There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). The majority of physicians viewed deintensifying (80%) and switching (92%) diabetes medications as important or very important to the care of older adults. Despite this, one-third of physicians reported deintensifying diabetes medications rarely or never. While most physicians recognized multiple reasons to deintensify, two-thirds of physicians reported barriers of short-term hyperglycemia and patient reluctance to change medications or allow higher glucose levels. In multivariable models, geriatricians rated deintensification as more important compared to other specialties (p=0.027), and endocrinologists rated switching as more important compared to other specialties (p<0.006). Physicians with fewer years in practice rated higher importance of deintensification (p<0.001) and switching (p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

While most US physicians viewed deintensifying and switching diabetes medications as important for the care of older adults, they deintensified infrequently. Physicians had ambivalence about the relative benefits and harms of deintensification and viewed it as a potential source of conflict with their patients. These factors likely contribute to clinical inertia, and studies focused on improving shared decision-making around deintensifying diabetes medications are needed.

Therapeutic inertia in treatment of older adults with type II diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia

Patients 80 years or older with HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) treated with multiple daily insulin injections had low rates of rapid-acting insulin deprescription and initiation of diabetes medications with lower risk of hypoglycemia. Further investigation is needed to elucidate factors contributing to potentially inappropriately aggressive treatment of these patients.

Factors and economic burden of non-severe hypoglycemia among insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

This cross-sectional survey was performed to assess the prevalence, factors, and economic burden of non-severe hypoglycemia among insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients in northern Thailand.

METHODS

Between April 2021 and August 2022, 600 participants were evaluated via structured questionnaires containing sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, medications, and economic burden. Patients were divided into two groups (having and not having non-severe hypoglycemia). Variables with a p value <.05 in the univariate model were included in the multivariate model.

RESULTS

The percentage of non-severe hypoglycemia was 50.3% (302/600). Of all participants, the average age was 61.4 ± 26.0 years, 55.7% were female, 53.5% used premix insulin, and the average duration of diabetes was 16.1 ± 10.0 years. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that age (OR = .96; p <.001), duration of diabetes (OR = 1.04; p <.001), BMI (OR = .95; p = .002), thiazolidinedione (OR = 1.56; p = .012) and insulin regimens were associated with having non-severe hypoglycemia. Compared to basal insulin, basal bolus (OR = 6.93; p = .001), basal plus (OR = 3.58; p <.001), and premix insulin (OR = 1.83; p =.003) were associated with hypoglycemia. Greater numbers of sick leave were found in the hypoglycemia group (14 vs 4 patients, p = .029).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings help to individuate those patients who are at higher risk of non-severe hypoglycemia in insulin-treated T2D patients. Compared to the non-hypoglycemia group, patients with hypoglycemia were younger, had longer diabetes duration, lower BMI, received thiazolidinedione and insulin regimens such as premix, basal plus, or basal bolus insulins, and more productivity loss.

Sliding Scale Insulin Use in Nursing Homes Before and After Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To characterize sliding-scale insulin (SSI) use in US nursing homes (NHs) before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 129,829 US NH residents on SSI (01/2018-06/2022) across 12 NH chains with a common electronic health record system.

METHODS

Among all residents with at least 1 administration of SSI documented in the electronic medication administration record, we described resident demographics, frequency of SSI monotherapy vs combination therapy with another diabetes medication, number of daily capillary blood glucose readings ("fingersticks"), and hypoglycemia (capillary blood glucose <70 mg/dL) and hyperglycemia after first SSI use. We used interrupted time series analysis (ITS) with segmented linear regression models to examine whether the monthly prevalence of SSI use changed at and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020).

RESULTS

There were 129,829 unique NH residents with SSI use [51% women, average age 71.3 (SD 11.7) years]. Of these, 36% of residents received SSI monotherapy and 64% received SSI combination therapy. Residents on SSI received an average of 3.96 (SD 1.41) fingersticks per day. Overall, 26% of SSI users experienced a hypoglycemic event within 30 days of the first SSI dose. The ITS analysis identified a step decrease in the rate of SSI use following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (43 fewer SSI users per 1000 insulin users) but no change in overall trend over time from before the onset of the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

SSI use and fingerstick burden are high in NH residents. Hypoglycemia occurred commonly among residents on SSI. Future research should compare the safety and effectiveness of SSI monotherapy vs other diabetes medication regimens to guide person-centered prescribing decisions in NHs.

13. Older Adults: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

6. Glycemic Goals and Hypoglycemia: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Glycemic control and diabetes complications across health status categories in older adults treated with insulin or insulin secretagogues: The Diabetes & Aging Study

BACKGROUND

For older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with insulin or sulfonylureas, Endocrine Society guideline recommends HbA1c between 7% to <7.5% for those in good health, 7.5% to <8% for those in intermediate health, and 8% to <8.5% for those in poor health. Our aim was to examine associations between attained HbA1c below, within (reference), or above recommended target range and risk of complication or mortality.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of adults ≥65 years old with T2D treated with insulin or sulfonylureas from an integrated healthcare delivery system. Cox proportional hazards models of complications during 2019 were adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables. Primary outcome was a combined outcome of any microvascular or macrovascular event, severe hypoglycemia, or mortality during 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 63,429 patients (mean age: 74.2 years, 46.8% women), 8773 (13.8%) experienced a complication. Complication risk was significantly elevated for patients in good health (n = 16,895) whose HbA1c was above (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.62-2.41) or below (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02-1.63) compared to within recommended range. Among those in intermediate health (n = 30,129), complication risk was increased for those whose HbA1c was above (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.30-1.60) but not those below the recommended range (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89-1.09). Among those in poor health (n = 16,405), complication risk was not significantly different for those whose HbA1c was below (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.09) or above (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88-1.06) recommended range.

CONCLUSIONS

For older adults with T2D in good health, HbA1c below or above the recommended range was associated with significantly elevated complication risk. However, for those in poor health, achieving specific HbA1c levels may not be helpful in reducing the risk of complications.

Simplification of Complex Insulin Regimens with IdegLira in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Literature Review and Clinical Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

This study developed a simple algorithm based on clinical results described in medical literature and which allows one to simplify complex insulin regimes with IdegLira to avoid adverse events related to the complexity of some insulin treatments.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature that allowed us to identify studies that evaluated the clinical result of simplifying complex insulin regimes. The authors reviewed the common factors these simpler regimes had, including the type of patients who used them.

RESULTS

We found nine clinical studies published between 2017 and 2022, eight performed in Europe and one in Latin America. The monitoring time of the studies ranged between 3 and 18 months. The size of the study populations was between 61 and 611 patients (the latter was in five countries). In all studies, HbA1c decreased by 0.6-1.7% and the weight decreased by 0.1-3.11 kg.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the findings of these studies, we made some recommendations for clinical practice to simplify treatment. The results of these studies support an algorithm that simplifies the treatment of complex insulin regimens.

Management of Glucose-Lowering Therapy in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Challenges and Opportunities

The population of older adults (≥65 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is diverse, encompassing individuals with varying functional capabilities, living arrangements, concomitant medical conditions, and life expectancies. Hence, their categorization into different patient profiles (ie, good health, intermediate health, poor health) may aid in clinical decision-making when establishing glycemic goals and pharmacological treatment strategies. Further granularity in assessing each patient profile through interdisciplinary collaboration may also add precision to therapeutic and monitoring decisions. In this review, we discuss with a multidisciplinary approach how to deliver the best benefit from advanced diabetes therapies and technologies to older adults with T2DM according to each patient profile. There remain however several areas that deserve further research in older adults with T2DM, including the efficacy and safety of continuous glucose monitoring and automated insulin delivery systems, the switch to once-weekly insulin, the effectiveness of multidisciplinary care models, and the use of supported telemedicine and remote blood glucose monitoring in the oldest-old (≥85 years) who particularly require the assistance of others.

Geriatric Syndromes in Older Adults with Diabetes

Over one-quarter of adults ≥65 years old have diabetes in the United States. Guidelines recommend individualization of glycemic targets in older adults with diabetes as well as implementing treatment strategies that minimize risk for hypoglycemia. Patient-centered management decisions should be informed by comorbidities, the individual's capacity for self-care, and the presence of key geriatric syndromes that may impact self-management and patient safety. Key geriatric syndromes include cognitive impairment, depression, functional impairments (eg, vision, hearing, and mobility challenges), falls and fractures, polypharmacy, and urinary incontinence. Screening for geriatric syndromes in older adults is recommended to inform treatment strategies and optimize outcomes.

A National Physician Survey of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications for Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To determine physicians' approach to deintensifying (reducing/stopping) or switching hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this national survey, U.S. physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology reported changes they would make to hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults in three scenarios: good health, HbA1c of 6.3%; complex health, HbA1c of 7.3%; and poor health, HbA1c of 7.7%.

RESULTS

There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). In patient scenarios, 48%, 4%, and 20% of physicians deintensified hypoglycemia-causing medications for patients with good, complex, and poor health, respectively. Overall, 17% of physicians switched medications without significant differences by patient health. One-half of physicians selected HbA1c targets below guideline recommendations for older adults with complex or poor health.

CONCLUSIONS

Most U.S. physicians would not deintensify or switch hypoglycemia-causing medications within guideline-recommended HbA1c targets. Physician preference for lower HbA1c targets than guidelines needs to be addressed to optimize deintensification decisions.

iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/ml plus lixisenatide) is effective and well tolerated in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes regardless of age: A REALI pooled analysis of prospective real-world data

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety in routine clinical practice of insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) according to age.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from 1316 adults with T2D inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs with or without basal insulin who initiated iGlarLixi for 24 weeks. Participants were classified into age subgroups of younger than 65 years (N = 806) and 65 years or older (N = 510).

RESULTS

Compared with participants aged younger than 65 years, those aged 65 years or older had a numerically lower mean body mass index (31.6 vs. 32.6 kg/m² ), a longer median diabetes duration (11.0 vs. 8.0 years), were more likely to receive prior basal insulin (48.4% vs. 43.5%) and had a lower mean HbA1c (8.93% [74.10 mmol/mol] vs. 9.22% [77.28 mmol/mol]). Similar and clinically relevant reductions in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 24 of iGlarLixi therapy were observed regardless of age. At 24 weeks, least-squares adjusted mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change in HbA1c from baseline was -1.55% (-1.65% to -1.44%) in those aged 65 years or older and -1.42% (-1.50% to -1.33%) in those aged younger than 65 years (95% CI: -0.26% to 0.00%; P = .058 between subgroups). Low incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events and hypoglycaemic episodes were reported in both age subgroups. iGlarLixi decreased mean body weight from baseline to week 24 in both subgroups (-1.6 kg in those aged ≥ 65 years and -2.0 kg in those aged < 65 years).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi is effective and well tolerated in both younger and older people with uncontrolled T2D.

Simplifying therapy to assure glycemic control and engagement (STAGE) in poorly-controlled diabetes: A pilot study

In this single-arm pilot study, we demonstrated feasibility and acceptability of an insulin simplification intervention in patients with persistent, poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes on complex insulin regimens. While not powered to assess clinical outcomes, we observed neither worsened glycemic control nor increased hypoglycemia.

13. Older Adults: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

One-year safety and efficacy results of insulin treatment simplification with IDegLira in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to investigate the sustained safety and efficacy of insulin treatment simplification with IDegLira in patients with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c ≤ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) during a 12-month follow-up.

METHODS

Seventy-two adults with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c ≤ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) participated in the trial (age 63.8 ± 9.5 years, HbA1c 6.4 ± 0.7%, [46 ± 8 mmol/mol] body weight 92.95 ± 18.83 kg, total daily insulin dose: 43.21 ± 10.80 units; mean ± SD). Previous insulins were stopped, and once daily IDegLira was started. IDegLira was titrated by the patients to achieve a self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose concentration of ≥5 mmol/L to ≤6 mmol/L.

RESULTS

After 12 months, good glycaemic control was maintained, while body weight decreased significantly. Mean HbA1c changed to 6.2 ± 0.8% (44 ± 9 mmol/mol) (p = .109) and body weight changed by -3.89 kg to 89.06 ± 18.61 kg (p < .0001). The simplified treatment was safe and well-tolerated. Percentage of patients experiencing at least one episode of hypoglycaemia was 49% during the month before simplification and 17% during the last 3 months of the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin treatment simplification with IDegLira in selected patients with type 2 diabetes is safe, maintains adequate glycaemic control and is associated with weight loss over 12 months.

Fingerstick glucose monitoring by cognitive impairment status in Veterans Affairs nursing home residents with diabetes

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend nursing home (NH) residents with cognitive impairment receive less intensive glycemic treatment and less frequent fingerstick monitoring. Our objective was to determine whether current practice aligns with guideline recommendations by examining fingerstick frequency in Veterans Affairs (VA) NH residents with diabetes across cognitive impairment levels.

METHODS

We identified VA NH residents with diabetes aged ≥65 residing in VA NHs for >30 days between 2016 and 2019. Residents were grouped by cognitive impairment status based on the Cognitive Function Scale: cognitively intact, mild impairment, moderate impairment, and severe impairment. We also categorized residents into mutually exclusive glucose-lowering medication (GLM) categories: (1) no GLMs, (2) metformin only, (3) sulfonylureas/other GLMs (+/- metformin but no insulin), (4) long-acting insulin (+/- oral/other GLMs but no short-acting insulin), and (5) any short-acting insulin. Our outcome was mean daily fingersticks on day 31 of NH admission.

RESULTS

Among 13,637 NH residents, mean age was 75 years and mean hemoglobin A1c was 7.0%. The percentage of NH residents on short-acting insulin varied by cognitive status from 22.7% in residents with severe cognitive impairment to 33.9% in residents who were cognitively intact. Mean daily fingersticks overall on day 31 was 1.50 (standard deviation = 1.73). There was a greater range in mean fingersticks across GLM categories compared to cognitive status. Fingersticks ranged widely across GLM categories from 0.39 per day (no GLMs) to 3.08 (short-acting insulin), while fingersticks ranged slightly across levels of cognitive impairment from 1.11 (severe cognitive impairment) to 1.59 (cognitively intact).

CONCLUSION

NH residents receive frequent fingersticks regardless of level of cognitive impairment, suggesting that cognitive status is a minor consideration in monitoring decisions. Future studies should determine whether decreasing fingersticks in NH residents with moderate/severe cognitive impairment can reduce burdens without compromising safety.

Sliding scale insulin use in a national cohort study of nursing home residents with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Guidelines discourage sliding scale insulin (SSI) use after the first week of a nursing home (NH) admission. We sought to determine the prevalence of SSI and identify factors associated with stopping SSI or transitioning to another short-acting insulin regimen.

METHODS

In an observational study from October 1, 2013, to June 30, 2017 of non-hospice Veterans Affairs NH residents with type 2 diabetes and an NH admission over 1 week, we compared the weekly prevalence of SSI versus two other short-acting insulin regimens - fixed dose insulin (FDI) or correction dose insulin (CDI, defined as variable SSI given alongside fixed doses of insulin) - from week 2 to week 12 of admission. Among those on SSI in week 2, we examined factors associated with stopping SSI or transitioning to other regimens by week 5. Factors included demographics (e.g., age, sex, race/ethnicity), frailty-related factors (e.g., comorbidities, cognitive impairment, functional impairment), and diabetes-related factors (e.g., HbA1c, long-acting insulin use, hyperglycemia, and hypoglycemia).

RESULTS

In week 2, 21% of our cohort was on SSI, 8% was on FDI, and 7% was on CDI. SSI was the most common regimen in frail subgroups (e.g., 18% of our cohort with moderate-severe cognitive impairment was on SSI vs 5% on FDI and 4% on CDI). SSI prevalence decreased steadily from 21% to 16% at week 12 (p for linear trend <0.001), mostly through stopping SSI. Diabetes-related factors (e.g., hyperglycemia) were more strongly associated with continuing SSI or transitioning to a non-SSI short-acting insulin regimen than frailty-related factors.

CONCLUSIONS

SSI is the most common method of administering short-acting insulin in NH residents. More research needs to be done to explore why sliding scale use persists weeks after NH admission and explore how we can replace this practice with safer, more effective, and less burdensome regimens.

“I Think Deprescribing as a Whole Is a Gap!”: A Qualitative Study of Student Pharmacist Perceptions about Deprescribing

Introduction: Older adults often manage multiple medications simultaneously, contributing to significant pill burden. Pill burden is a major concern for both patients and providers alike, and student pharmacists may play a role in decreasing that burden. Few studies exist evaluating student pharmacists’ roles in and perceptions of deprescribing in the healthcare team. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore student pharmacist perceptions regarding deprescribing in their pharmacy curricula. Methods: This study used a focus group discussion (FGD) methodology to facilitate discussion on deprescribing among student pharmacists. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) informed the conceptualization of this study, data collection, and thematic analysis. Student pharmacists enrolled in three different colleges of pharmacy across various geographical regions of the U.S. were recruited to participate in the study. Data collection occurred in the Fall of 2021, and recruitment proceeded until thematic saturation was achieved. The audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, and the transcripts were uploaded into Dedoose®, a qualitative software that facilitated the data analysis. The inductive codes were grouped into categories based on similarities that resulted in the themes. Results: Three colleges, totaling 1366 student pharmacists across different geographic regions of the U.S., were invited to participate in this study (UTHSC, N = 682; UNE, N = 158, University of Arizona, N = 526). Twenty-six student pharmacists participated in four FGDs. Of 26 participants, fourteen self-identified as male and two declined to state their gender identity. The mean age was 24 years old, with participants ranging from 21 to 37 years old. Thematic analysis revealed two major themes: (1) student pharmacists indicated that they possessed limited information about the deprescribing process, which is best illustrated by the following quote: “I think deprescribing as a whole is a gap!”; and (2) student pharmacists recommended increasing emphasis on deprescribing in pharmacy curricula. Conclusions: Student pharmacists identified few educational experiences on deprescribing in their curriculum while demonstrating a strong desire for more emphasis on deprescribing in the pharmacy curricula. This study highlights an opportunity to improve the integration of deprescribing education into pharmacy curricula, and colleges of pharmacy should evaluate whether, where, and to what extent the incorporation of this topic into their curricula is appropriate.

Expert Panel Guidance and Narrative Review of Treatment Simplification of Complex Insulin Regimens to Improve Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes

Given the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D), most individuals with the disease will ultimately undergo treatment intensification. This usually involves the stepwise addition of a new glucose-lowering agent or switching to a more complex insulin regimen. However, complex treatment regimens can result in an increased risk of hypoglycaemia and high treatment burden, which may impact negatively on both therapeutic adherence and overall quality of life. Individuals with good glycaemic control may also be overtreated with unnecessarily complex regimens. Treatment simplification aims to reduce individual treatment burden, without compromising therapeutic effectiveness or safety. Despite data showing that simplifying therapy can achieve good glycaemic control without negatively impacting on treatment efficacy or safety, it is not always implemented in clinical practice. Current clinical guidelines focus on treatment intensification, rather than simplification. Where simplification is recommended, clear guidance is lacking and mostly focused on treatment of the elderly. An expert, multidisciplinary panel evaluated the current treatment landscape with respect to guidance, published evidence, recommendations and approaches regarding simplification of complex insulin regimens. This article outlines the benefits of treatment simplification and provides practical recommendations on simplifying complex insulin treatment strategies in people with T2D using illustrative cases.

A Cross-Sectional study on risk factors for severe hypoglycemia among Insulin-Treated elderly type 2 diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients in Singapore

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the risk factors for severe hypoglycemia among Southeast Asian T2DM patients.

METHODS

Insulin-treated T2DM patients greater than 65 years old with HbA1c < 8% were recruited. They completed questionnaires detailing their experience of hypoglycemia and presence of impaired hypoglycemia awareness (IAH). Data on insulin treatment regimens, glycated haemoglobin (Hba1c) and comorbidities were also collected.

RESULTS

Of the 92 participants, 15.2% had at least one episode of severe hypoglycemia over the past year. Comparison between both groups showed that patients with severe hypoglycemia had lower Hba1c, higher Gold score (3.9 ± 1.9 vs. 2.5 ± 1.4; p < .05) and higher Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS) worry score (39.1 ± 14.3 vs. 31.8 ± 11.8; p < .05). There were no significant differences in duration of diabetes and insulin treatment, treatment regimens and diabetes associated comorbidities except peripheral vascular disease. Furthermore, no significant differences were noted in HFS behavior score, hypoglycemia risk modifying behavior and social economic status.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe hypoglycemia had tighter glycemic control, greater IAH and higher worry scores regardless of treatment regimens. Clinicians may play a significant role in tightening glycemic control and influencing the risk of severe hypoglycemia. Standard structured diabetes education may help reduce the risk of severe hypoglycemia among this group of patients.

Switching from Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) Insulin to Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL in Older and Younger Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Older age and longer disease duration are key risk factors for hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who receive insulin. Previous studies have shown that insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) improves glycemic control and reduces the risk of hypoglycemia, but whether this effect is observed in older patients switching from neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin is unclear.

METHODS

In this multicenter, observational study involving patients with T2D aged ≥ 18 years with glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) ≥ 8%, we compared the safety and effectiveness of switching from NPH insulin to Gla-300 in subgroups of patients differing by age (< 65 vs. ≥ 65 years) and duration of diabetes (≤ 13 vs. > 13 years).

RESULTS

A total of 469 participants were included in the study. From baseline to 6 months after switching to Gla-300, mean HbA_1c decreased from 9.23% to 8.13% (p < 0.001) among patients aged ≤ 65 years (224 patients), and from 9.15% to 8.20% (p < 0.001) among those aged > 65 years (245 patients). The proportion of patients with ≥ 1 episodes of hypoglycemia decreased from 19.1% to 13.6% (p = 0.11) among those aged ≤ 65 years, and from 26.9% to 13.0% (p < 0.001) among those aged > 65 years; the reduction was significantly greater in those aged > 65 years (p = 0.001). The reduction in HbA_1c was greater in those with a disease duration ≤ 13 years (p = 0.007), but the reduction in hypoglycemia was greater in those with a disease duration > 13 years (p < 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

The switch from NPH insulin to Gla-300 improved glycemic control in older patients with T2D and in those with a longer disease duration. Older patients with T2D and those with a longer disease duration benefited even more from the switch to Gla-300 than younger patients and those with a shorter disease duration, with significantly greater reductions in the risk of hypoglycemia.

13. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

The increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes in the general population as well as enhanced life expectancy has resulted in a rapid rise in the prevalence of diabetes in the older population. Diabetes causes significant morbidity and impairs quality of life. Managing diabetes in older adults is a daunting task due to unique health and psychosocial challenges. Medical management is complicated by polypharmacy, cognitive impairment, urinary incontinence, injurious falls, and persistent pain. Health care providers now have several traditional and contemporary pharmacologic agents to manage diabetes. Avoidance of hypoglycemia is critical; however, evidence-based guidelines are lacking due to the paucity of clinical trials in older adults. For many in this population, maintaining independence is more important than adherence to published guidelines to prevent diabetes complications. The goal of diabetes care in older adults is to enhance the quality of life without subjecting these patients to intrusive and complicated interventions. Recent technological advancements such as continuous glucose monitoring systems can have crucial supplementary benefits in the geriatric population.

Low glycaemic state increases risk of frailty and functional decline in older people with type 2 diabetes mellitus - Evidence from a systematic review

AIMS

To explore risk of frailty and functional decline associated with low glycaemia in older people with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Systematic review.

RESULTS

11 studies included. Six studies investigated risk of frailty or physical decline with hypoglycaemia. Hypoglycaemia increased risk of incident frailty (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.42) in one study and risk of fractures in four studies (2.24, 1.56 to 3.21, 1.24, 1.13 to 1.37, 1.94, 1.67 to 2.24 and 1.71, 1.35 to 2.16 respectively). In sixth study, hypoglycaemia associated with dependency (P < 0.001). Five studies explored association of low blood glucose/HbA1c with frailty. One study showed that mean blood glucose decreased with increasing frailty (p = 0.003). Two studies reported that HbA1c inversely correlated with clinical frailty scale (r = -0.31, p < 0.01) and HbA1c < 6.9% increased risk of frailty (HR, 1.41 95% CI 1.12 to 1.78) respectively. Last two studies showed that HbA1c < 6.5% associated with risk of any fracture (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.11) and HbA1c < 6.0% associated with increased risk of care need (3.45, 1.02 to 11.6) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Low glycaemia increases risk of frailty and functional decline in older people with type 2 diabetes. Management should minimise incidence of low glycaemia in these patients.

Simplification of complex insulin therapy: a story of dogma and therapeutic resignation

The combination of rapid-acting plus long-acting insulins has been the cornerstone of therapy of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and has also become the gold standard of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). A significant proportion of T2DM patients are overtreated, with potential harms of insulin therapy exceeding its benefits. Treatment simplification aims to decrease the complexity of insulin regimens, including, but not limited to fewer administration times and fewer blood glucose checks. Few small studies in T2DM patients with good glycemic control have shown that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or sodium-glucose cotrasporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors can be a safe and effective alternative to bolus insulin, if basal insulin administration is continued. Two larger and controlled trials have thrown some light about simplification of complex insulin regimens in patients with T2DM and poor glycemic control. Although different in their design (randomized controlled trial versus pragmatic trial), their results provide evidence that it is possible to switch from a basal bolus insulin regimen to a combination of basal insulin plus either a GLP-1RA or a daily gliflozin pill, with same or better glycemic control, less injections, less insulin doses, less hypoglycemia and increased satisfaction of therapy. The dogma about the untouchability of basal bolus insulin regimen has been confuted.

Estimates of insulin needs and dispensation given wastage, alternative glycemic targets, and non-insulin therapies in US populations with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A microsimulation study

AIMS

Registries and health plans estimate insulin need for population health metrics. We sought to identify how such estimates affect population- and individual-level estimates of over- and under-treatment.

METHODS

We developed a microsimulation comparing estimated insulin need to dispensation using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2005-2016, N= 2832) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS, 2005-2016, N = 29,615).

RESULTS

From NHANES, ~21.6% of people with type 2 diabetes would require insulin to achieve a HbA1c target of 7% after maximum titration of two non-insulins (60.7 IU/person/day, or 84,629,833 vials of 1000 IU in the US). From MEPS, we observed 57.4 IU/person/day of insulin dispensed (81,585,842 vials). About 29% of people were dispensed at least two standard deviations less than their estimated need, and 22% at least two standard deviations more than estimated need. Population-level need estimates reduced 39.4% if liberalizing HbA1c targets to 8% for people ≥75 years old.

CONCLUSIONS

Estimated insulin needs of people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. are consistent with their dispensed insulin at the population level, but are sensitive to HbA1c targets for older adults, and conceal under- and over-treated subpopulations.

Impact of Age on the Effectiveness and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL: Results from the REALI European Pooled Data Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Patients aged ≥ 65 years continue to be underrepresented in clinical studies related to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Accordingly, the REALI pooled analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) across different age subgroups, using data from 14 interventional and non-interventional studies.

METHODS

Pooled efficacy and safety data were collected from 8106 European patients with uncontrolled T2DM who were initiated on or switched to Gla-300 injected once daily for 24 weeks. Patients were categorised into five age subgroups: < 50 (N = 727), 50-59 (N = 2030), 60-69 (N = 3054), 70-79 (N = 1847) and ≥ 80 years (N = 448).

RESULTS

Mean baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) decreased linearly from the youngest (9.10%) to the oldest (8.46%) age subgroup. Following Gla-300 initiation, there were similar HbA1c reductions across age groups, with a least squares mean (95% confidence interval) change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 of - 1.09% (- 1.18 to - 1.00), - 1.08% (- 1.14 to - 1.03), - 1.12% (- 1.17 to - 1.07), - 1.18% (- 1.24 to - 1.12) and - 1.11% (- 1.23 to - 0.99) in the < 50, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79 and ≥ 80 years subgroups, respectively. The incidences and event rates of reported hypoglycaemia were overall low. Compared to younger age subgroups, lower incidences of symptomatic hypoglycaemia occurring at any time of the day (5.9 vs. 7.6-9.4% for the younger subgroups) or during the night (0.5 vs. 1.6-2.5%) were recorded in patients aged ≥ 80 years. By contrast, the highest incidence of severe hypoglycaemia occurring any time of the day was reported in the subgroup aged ≥ 80 years (1.1 vs. 0.1-0.6% for the younger age subgroups).

CONCLUSION

Gla-300 initiated in patients with uncontrolled T2DM provides glycaemic improvement with a favourable safety profile across a wide range of ages.

Hypoglycemia in Older People With Type 2 Diabetes: Prevention and Treatment Strategies for Outpatient and Long-Term Care Facility Settings

Hypoglycemia in the older population is a significant problem accounting for increased hospitalizations, emergency room visits, health care costs, and decreased quality of life. Older patients are more susceptible to hypoglycemia because of the increased prevalence of comorbidities requiring multiple medications, age-related physiologic changes, and a progressive decline in health. Older patients are less likely to present with symptoms of hypoglycemia and symptoms may frequently appear at a lower threshold of blood glucose than in younger patients. Consequently, preventing and treating hyperglycemia in older patients can be challenging. If mismanaged, the impact of hypoglycemia in these patients can lead to acute and chronic negative outcomes. Insulin and sulfonylureas should be closely monitored, and deprescribing should be routinely considered in older patients at high risk for hypoglycemia.

12. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Fingerstick Glucose Monitoring in Veterans Affairs Nursing Home Residents with Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Guidelines recommend less intensive glycemic treatment and less frequent glucose monitoring for nursing home (NH) residents. However, little is known about the frequency of fingerstick (FS) glucose monitoring in this population. Our objective was to examine the frequency of FS glucose monitoring in Veterans Affairs (VA) NH residents with diabetes mellitus, type II (T2DM).

DESIGN AND SETTING

National retrospective cohort study in 140 VA NHs.

PARTICIPANTS

NH residents with T2DM and older than 65 years admitted to VA NHs between 2013 and 2015 following discharge from a VA hospital.

MEASUREMENTS

NH residents were classified into five groups based on their highest hypoglycemia risk glucose-lowering medication (GLM) each day: no GLMs; metformin only; sulfonylureas; long-acting insulin; and any short-acting insulin. Our outcome was a daily count of FS measurements.

RESULTS

Among 17,474 VA NH residents, mean age was 76 (standard deviation (SD) = 8) years and mean hemoglobin A1c was 7.6% (SD = 1.5%). On day 1 after NH admission, 49% of NH residents were on short-acting insulin, decreasing slightly to 43% at day 90. Overall, NH residents had an average of 1.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.8-1.9) FS measurements on NH day 1, decreasing to 1.4 (95% CI = 1.3-1.4) by day 90. NH residents on short-acting insulin had the most frequent FS measurements, with 3.0 measurements (95% CI = 2.9-3.0) on day 1, decreasing to 2.6 measurements (95% CI = 2.5-2.7) by day 90. Less frequent FS measurements were seen for NH residents receiving long-acting insulin (2.1 (95% CI = 2.0-2.2) on day 1) and sulfonylureas (1.7 (95% CI = 1.5-1.8) on day 1). Even NH residents on metformin monotherapy had 1.1 (95% CI = 1.1-1.2) measurements on day 1, decreasing to 0.5 (95% CI = 0.4-0.6) measurements on day 90.

CONCLUSION

Although guidelines recommend less frequent glucose monitoring for NH residents, we found that many VA NH residents receive frequent FS monitoring. Given the uncertain benefits and potential for substantial patient burdens and harms, our results suggest decreasing FS monitoring may be warranted for many low hypoglycemia risk NH residents.

Type 2 diabetes management in people aged over seventy-five years: targets and treatment strategies

Older people (those aged 65 years or more) with diabetes comprise a heterogenous group of patients with special needs and features; this is particularly true for those aged 75 years or more. It is important that individualized glycemic targets be adopted in this population, after considering life expectancy, presence of diabetic complications and other comorbidities. In general, less rigorous targets and avoidance of overtreatment seems to be a reasonable strategy in daily clinical settings. There is a paucity of data regarding the efficacy and safety of various hypoglycemic agents, especially for those aged over 75. The evidence suggests that sulfonylureas and insulin regimens should be used with caution due to a high risk of hypoglycemia. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are a good choice for the management of diabetes in older age groups, although a warning against the use of specific agents in people with heart failure is valid. There are insufficient data to decide whether the cardiorenal protective properties of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors outweigh the risks associated with these drugs. The use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists by older patients is supported not only by their good safety and efficacy profiles, but also by their potential to improve glucose-independent outcomes, through their pleiotropic actions. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the evidence on glycemic targets and optimal therapeutic approaches for older patients with type 2 diabetes and discuss the risk-benefit balance of various therapeutic approaches in this group.

Diabetes in ageing: pathways for developing the evidence base for clinical guidance

Older adults with diabetes are heterogeneous in their medical, functional, and cognitive status, and require careful individualisation of their treatment regimens. However, in the absence of detailed information from clinical trials involving older people with varying characteristics, there is little evidence-based guidance, which is a notable limitation of current approaches to care. It is important to recognise that older people with diabetes might vary in their profiles according to age category, functional health, presence of frailty, and comorbidity profiles. In addition, all older adults with diabetes require an individualised approach to care, ranging from robust individuals to those residing in care homes with a short life expectancy, those requiring palliative care, or those requiring end-of-life management. In this Review, our multidisciplinary team of experts describes the current evidence in several important areas in geriatric diabetes, and outlines key research gaps and research questions in each of these areas with the aim to develop evidence-based recommendations to improve the outcomes of interest in older adults.

Challenges and Strategies for Managing Diabetes in the Elderly in Long-Term Care Settings

Diabetes affects a large number of patients in the long-term care (LTC) setting, and their care is often complicated because of multimorbidity, diabetes-related complications, disability, dependency on caregivers, and geriatric syndromes, including frailty and cognitive impairment. This population includes patients receiving short-term rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities, those who are residents in LTC facilities, and those receiving palliative or end-of-life care. An individualized approach to care based on clinical complexity, diabetes trajectory, and patients' preferences and goals is required. Such patients may experience one or more transitions of care and decline in condition. They are also prone to adverse drug events, cardiovascular events, and hypoglycemia. Facility-related challenges include varying staff competencies and practitioner preferences, inconsistent interdisciplinary communication, overly complex medication regimens, and poorly implemented care transitions.

Management of Inpatient Hyperglycemia and Diabetes in Older Adults

Diabetes is one of the world's fastest growing health challenges. Insulin therapy remains a useful regimen for many elderly patients, such as those with moderate to severe hyperglycemia, type 1 diabetes, hyperglycemic emergencies, and those who fail to maintain glucose control on non-insulin agents alone. Recent clinical trials have shown that several non-insulin agents as monotherapy, or in combination with low doses of basal insulin, have comparable efficacy and potential safety advantages to complex insulin therapy regimens. Determining the most appropriate diabetes management plan for older hospitalized patients requires consideration of many factors to prevent poor outcomes related to dysglycemia.

Challenges and Strategies for Diabetes Management in Community-Living Older Adults

The prevalence of diabetes is increasing, especially in older people, mainly because of an increase in life expectancy. The number of comorbidities also increases with increasing age, leading to a unique diabetes phenotype in old age that includes vascular disease, physical and neuropathic complications, and mental dysfunction. These three categories of complications appear to have a synergistic effect that can lead to a vicious cycle of deterioration into disability. Early assessment and appropriate, timely interventions may delay adverse outcomes. However, this complex phenotype constitutes a great challenge for health care professionals. This article reviews the complex diabetes phenotype in old age and explores management strategies that are predominantly based on the overall functional status of patients within this heterogeneous age-group.

Challenges and Strategies for Inpatient Diabetes Management in Older Adults

Adults older than 65 years of age are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population. Aging is also one of the most important risk factors for diabetes, and about one-third of all individuals with diabetes are in this age-group. Older people with diabetes are more likely to have comorbidities such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and cognitive impairment, which lead to higher rates of hospital admissions compared with individuals without diabetes. Professional organizations have recommended patient-centric individualized glycemic reduction approaches, with an emphasis on potential harms of intensive glycemic control and overtreatment in older adults. Insulin therapy remains a mainstay of diabetes management in the inpatient setting regardless of patients' age; however, there is uncertainty about optimal glycemic targets during the hospital stay. Increasing evidence supports selective use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, alone or in combination with low-dose basal insulin, in older noncritically ill patients with mild to moderate hyperglycemia. This article reviews the prevalence, diagnosis, and monitoring of, and the available treatment strategies for, diabetes among elderly patients in the inpatient setting.

Managing Diabetes and Dementia

Dementia and type 2 diabetes are a serious public health problem worldwide, with increasing incidence with age. Diabetes is a risk factor for the development of dementia. Having cognitive dysfunction impairs a person's ability to perform self-care tasks. Also, community dwelling adults can have varying levels of functional impairment and can also have other geriatric syndromes. This article presents a multidisciplinary approach and treatment and goals tailored individually to patients with different levels of cognitive and activities of daily living impairments. Three case studies show the management of diabetes in older adults with different levels of care needs.

Prevalence of Diabetes Medication Intensifications in Older Adults Discharged From US Veterans Health Administration Hospitals

Importance

Elevated blood glucose levels are common in hospitalized older adults and may lead clinicians to intensify outpatient diabetes medications at discharge, risking potential overtreatment when patients return home.

Objective

To assess how often hospitalized older adults are discharged with intensified diabetes medications and the likelihood of benefit associated with these intensifications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study examined patients aged 65 years and older with diabetes not previously requiring insulin. The study included patients who were hospitalized in a Veterans Health Administration hospital for common medical conditions between 2011 and 2013.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Intensification of outpatient diabetes medications, defined as receiving a new or higher-dose medication at discharge than was being taken prior to hospitalization. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to control for patient and hospitalization characteristics.

Results

Of 16 178 patients (mean [SD] age, 73 [8] years; 15 895 [98%] men), 8535 (53%) had a preadmission hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level less than 7.0%, and 1044 (6%) had an HbA1c level greater than 9.0%. Overall, 1626 patients (10%) were discharged with intensified diabetes medications including 781 (5%) with new insulins and 557 (3%) with intensified sulfonylureas. Nearly half of patients receiving intensifications (49% [791 of 1626]) were classified as being unlikely to benefit owing to limited life expectancy or already being at goal HbA1c, while 20% (329 of 1626) were classified as having potential to benefit. Both preadmission HbA1c level and inpatient blood glucose recordings were associated with discharge with intensified diabetes medications. Among patients with a preadmission HbA1c level less than 7.0%, the predicted probability of receiving an intensification was 4% (95% CI, 3%-4%) for patients without elevated inpatient blood glucose levels and 21% (95% CI, 15%-26%) for patients with severely elevated inpatient blood glucose levels.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, 1 in 10 older adults with diabetes hospitalized for common medical conditions was discharged with intensified diabetes medications. Nearly half of these individuals were unlikely to benefit owing to limited life expectancy or already being at their HbA1c goal.

Documentation of hypoglycemia assessment among adults with diabetes during clinical encounters in primary care and endocrinology practices

PURPOSE

To examine the proportion of diabetes-focused clinical encounters in primary care and endocrinology practices where the evaluation for hypoglycemia is documented; and when it is, identify clinicians' stated actions in response to patient-reported events.

METHODS

A total of 470 diabetes-focused encounters among 283 patients nonpregnant adults (≥18 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus in this retrospective cohort study. Participants were randomly identified in blocks of treatment strategy and care location (95 and 52 primary care encounters among hypoglycemia-prone medications (i.e. insulin, sulfonylurea) and others patients, respectively; 94 and 42 endocrinology encounters among hypo-treated and others, respectively). Documentation of hypoglycemia and subsequent management plan in the electronic health record were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 132 (46.6%) patients had documentation of hypoglycemia assessment, significantly more prevalent among hypo-treated patients seen in endocrinology than in primary care (72.3% vs. 47.4%; P = 0.001). Hypoglycemia was identified by patient in 38.2% of encounters. Odds of hypoglycemia assessment documentation was highest among the hypo-treated (OR 13.6; 95% CI 5.5-33.74, vs. others) and patients seen in endocrine clinic (OR 4.48; 95% CI 2.3-8.6, vs. primary care). After documentation of hypoglycemia, treatment was modified in 30% primary care and 46% endocrine clinic encounters; P = 0.31. Few patients were referred to diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES).

CONCLUSIONS

Continued efforts to improve hypoglycemia evaluation, documentation, and management are needed, particularly in primary care. This includes not only screening at-risk patients for hypoglycemia, but also modifying their treatment regimens and/or leveraging DSMES.

Association of Cumulative Multimorbidity, Glycemic Control, and Medication Use With Hypoglycemia-Related Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations Among Adults With Diabetes

IMPORTANCE

Severe hypoglycemia is a serious and potentially preventable complication of diabetes, with some of the most severe episodes requiring emergency department (ED) care or hospitalization. A variety of health conditions increase the risk of hypoglycemia. People with diabetes often have multiple comorbidities, and the association of such multimorbidity with hypoglycemia risk in the context of other risk factors is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the associations of age, cumulative multimorbidity, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, and use of glucose level-lowering medication with hypoglycemia-related ED visits and hospitalizations.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cohort study of claims and laboratory data from OptumLabs Data Warehouse, an administrative claims database of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in the United States. Participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) with diabetes who had an available HbA1c level result in 2015. Data from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016, were analyzed. Final analyses were conducted from December 2017 to September 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

This study calculated rates of hypoglycemia-related ED visits and hospitalizations during the year after the index HbA1c level was obtained, stratified by patient demographic characteristics, diabetes type, comorbidities (from 16 guideline-specified high-risk conditions), index HbA1c level, and glucose level-lowering medication use. The association of each variable with hypoglycemia-related ED and hospital care was examined using multivariable Poisson regression analysis overall and by diabetes type.

RESULTS

The study cohort was composed of 201 705 adults with diabetes (mean [SD] age, 65.8 [12.1] years; 102 668 [50.9%] women; 118 804 [58.9%] white; mean [SD] index HbA1c level, 7.2% [1.5%]). Overall, there were 9.06 (95% CI, 8.64-9.47) hypoglycemia-related ED visits and hospitalizations per 1000 persons per year. The risk of hypoglycemia-related ED visits and hospitalizations was increased by age 75 years or older (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.56 [95% CI, 1.23-2.02] vs 18-44 years), black race/ethnicity (IRR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.16-1.46] vs white race/ethnicity), lower annual household income (IRR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.53-0.74] for ≥$100 000 vs <$40 000), number of comorbidities (increasing from IRR of 1.66 [95% CI, 1.42-1.95] in the presence of 2 comorbidities to IRR of 4.12 [95% CI, 3.07-5.51] with ≥8 comorbidities compared with ≤1), prior hypoglycemia-related ED visit or hospitalization (IRR, 6.60 [95% CI, 5.77-7.56]), and glucose level-lowering treatment regimen (IRR, 6.73 [95% CI, 4.93-9.22] for sulfonylurea; 12.53 [95% CI, 8.90-17.64] for basal insulin; and 27.65 [95% CI, 20.32-37.63] for basal plus bolus insulin compared with other medications). Independent of these factors, having type 1 diabetes was associated with a 34% increase in the risk of hypoglycemia-related ED visits or hospitalizations (IRR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.15-1.55]). The index HbA1c level was associated with hypoglycemia-related ED visits and hospitalizations when both low (IRR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.12-1.87] for HbA1c level ≤5.6% vs 6.5%-6.9%) and high (IRR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.02-1.50] for HbA1c level ≥10%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of adults with diabetes, the risk of an ED visit or hospitalization for hypoglycemia appeared to be highest among patients with type 1 diabetes, multiple comorbidities, prior severe hypoglycemia, and sulfonylurea and/or insulin use. At-risk patients may benefit from individualized treatment regimens to decrease their risk of hypoglycemia.

Clinical guidelines for type 1 diabetes mellitus with an emphasis on older adults: an Executive Summary

We present a summary of a guideline produced by an international group of experts for managing type 1 diabetes in adults with an emphasis on the special needs of older people with this condition. The rationale for delivering high-quality diabetes care for adults with type 1 diabetes, why it is important to include older people in our considerations, and the key underpinning principles of the guideline are included. The structure of the recommendations given is described and consists of 'general' recommendations followed by 'specific' recommendations according to three categories depending on the characteristics of adults addressed, such as functional level or self-management ability. Recommendations are provided in the areas of: clinical diagnosis, establishing management plans and glucose regulation, diabetes self-management education, nutritional therapy, physical activity, exercise and lifestyle modification, insulin treatments and regimens, use of technology in diabetes management, hypoglycaemia, managing cardiovascular risk, management of microvascular risk, and inpatient management of type 1 diabetes and ketoacidosis.

Risk prediction for severe hypoglycemia in a type 2 diabetes population with previous non-severe hypoglycemia

BACKGROUND/AIM

Episodes of non-severe hypoglycemia can be captured through diagnoses documented in the electronic medical record. We aimed to create a clinically useful prediction model for a severe hypoglycemia event, requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalization, in patients with Type 2 diabetes with a history of non-severe hypoglycemia.

METHODS

Using electronic medical record data from 50,439 patients with Type 2 diabetes in one health system, number of severe hypoglycemia events and associated patient characteristics from 2006 to 2015 were previously defined. Using the landmarking method, a dynamic prediction model was built using the subset of 1876 patients who had a documented non-severe hypoglycemia diagnosis code, using logistic regression to obtain landmark-specific odds of severe hypoglycemia in this group. For model performance, the bootstrap procedure was employed for internal validation and area under the curve (AUC) and index of prediction accuracy (IPA) were calculated.

RESULTS

Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) less than 7% (53 mmol/mol) was associated with increased odds ratio (OR) of severe hypoglycemia at 3 months (OR 1.92 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.19-3.10 at HbA1c 5% (31 mmol/mol) and OR 1.21, CI 1.03-1.41 at HbA1c 6%(42 mmol/mol).) History of non-severe hypoglycemia within the past 3 months increased odds for severe hypoglycemia (OR 2.58 95% CI 1.80-3.70) as did Black race, insulin use with the past 3 months, and comorbidities. Metformin and sulfonlylurea use in the past 3 months, increasing age and body mass index had lower odds of a future severe hypoglycemia event. For the prediction model for 3 month risk of severe hypoglycemia, the AUC was 0.890 (CI 0.843-0.907) and the IPA was 10.8% (CI 4.4% - 12.4%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with a documented diagnosis of non-severe hypoglycemia, a dynamic prediction model identifies patients with Type 2 diabetes with 3-month increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, allowing for preventive efforts, such as medication changes, at the point of care.

12. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Use and Discontinuation of Insulin Treatment Among Adults Aged 75 to 79 Years With Type 2 Diabetes

IMPORTANCE

Among older individuals with type 2 diabetes, those with poor health have greater risk and derive less benefit from tight glycemic control with insulin.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether insulin treatment is used less frequently and discontinued more often among older individuals with poor health compared with those in good health.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This longitudinal cohort study included 21 531 individuals with type 2 diabetes followed for up to 4 years starting at age 75 years. Electronic health record data from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Diabetes Registry was collected to characterize insulin treatment and glycemic control over time. Data were collected from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2017, and analyzed from February 2, 2018, through June 30, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Health status was defined as good (<2 comorbid conditions or 2 comorbidities but physically active), intermediate (>2 comorbidities or 2 comorbidities and no self-reported weekly exercise), or poor (having end-stage pulmonary, cardiac, or renal disease; diagnosis of dementia; or metastatic cancer).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Insulin use prevalence at age 75 years and discontinuation among insulin users over the next 4 years (or 6 months prior to death if <4 years).

RESULTS

Of 21 531 patients, 10 396 (48.3%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 75 (0) years. Nearly one-fifth of 75-year-olds (4076 [18.9%]) used insulin. Prevalence and adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) of insulin use at age 75 years were higher in individuals with poor health (29.4%; aRR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.87-2.20; P < .01) and intermediate health (27.5%; aRR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.74-1.97; P < .01) relative to good health (10.5% [reference]). One-third (1335 of 4076 [32.7%]) of insulin users at age 75 years discontinued insulin within 4 years of cohort entry (and at least 6 months prior to death). Likelihood of continued insulin use was higher among individuals in poor health (aRR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.67; P < .01) and intermediate health (aRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.30; P < .01) compared with good health (reference). These same prevalence and discontinuation patterns were present in the subset with tight glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c <7.0%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In older individuals with type 2 diabetes, insulin use was most prevalent among those in poor health, whereas subsequent insulin discontinuation after age 75 years was most likely in healthier patients. Changes are needed in current practice to better align with guidelines that recommend reducing treatment intensity as health status declines.

Simplifying Complex Insulin Regimens While Preserving Good Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetic patients suffering from severe hyperglycemia are often assigned a regimen involving multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin. If the glucose toxicity resolves, the regimen can potentially be simplified, but there are no guidelines for this, and many patients are left on the MDI regimen. We aimed to prospectively examine the safety and efficacy of switching from MDI to once-daily IDegLira, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide, in relatively well controlled (HbA1c ≤ 7.5%) subjects with type 2 diabetes on a low total daily insulin dose (TDD).

METHODS

62 adults with type 2 diabetes (baseline age 64.06 ± 10.24 years, HbA_1c 6.42 ± 0.68%, BMI 33.53 ± 6.90 kg/m², body weight 93.81 ± 19.26 kg, TDD 43.31 ± 10.99 IU/day, insulin requirement 0.47 ± 0.13 IU/kg, duration of diabetes 10.84 ± 7.50 years, mean ± SD) treated with MDI ± metformin were enrolled in our study. Previous insulins were stopped and once-daily IDegLira was started. IDegLira was titrated by the patients to achieve a self-measured pre-breakfast blood glucose concentration of < 6 mmol/L.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up period of 99.2 days, mean HbA_1c had decreased by 0.30% to 6.12 ± 0.65% (p < 0.0001), body weight had decreased by 3.11 kg to 90.70 ± 19.12 kg (p < 0.0001), and BMI had reduced to 32.39 ± 6.71 kg/m² (p < 0.0001). After 3 months of treatment, the mean dose of IDegLira was 20.76 ± 6.60 units and the mean insulin requirement had decreased to 0.23 ± 0.08 IU/kg. IDegLira ± metformin combination therapy was found to be safe and generally well tolerated. During the month before the baseline visit, 28 patients (45%) had at least one episode of documented or symptomatic hypoglycemia, while only 6 (9.67%) patients reported a total of 13 documented episodes during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In everyday clinical practice, switching from low-dose MDI to IDegLira in patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes is safe, may result in weight loss and similar or better glycemic control, and substantially reduces the insulin requirement. Simplifying complex treatment regimens decreases treatment burden and may improve adherence to therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

NCT04020445.

Challenges of Diabetes Care in Older People With Type 2 Diabetes and the Role of Basal Insulin

IN BRIEF The use of long-acting basal insulin analogs is a recommended strategy in older people with diabetes because of their lower risk of hypoglycemia compared to intermediate-acting insulins. In this article, we review the results from recent clinical trials of second-generation basal insulin preparations. We conclude that, although these preparations have improved the management of insulin-requiring older people with type 2 diabetes, there is a need for additional and more specific studies to address the complexities of hyperglycemia management in this population.

Inpatient Management of T2DM and Hyperglycemia in Older Adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to provide a summary of the evaluation and treatment of older adults (≥ 65 years) with type 2 diabetes and/or hyperglycemia in the hospital.

RECENT FINDINGS

Caring for these older adults requires special considerations. Diabetes is a risk factor for hospitalization and hyperglycemia in the hospital is associated with increased complications and mortality. Treatment plans for hospitalized older adults with diabetes should include a comprehensive geriatric assessment. This team-based approach aims to develop an individualized care plan, with consideration of the patients' personal goals, comorbidities, functional status, life expectancy, and hypoglycemia risk. Studies from hospitalized middle age and older adults with hyperglycemia can help guide diabetes treatment goals and management in older adults. Further studies, examining both glucose targets and care management assessments and treatment plan specifically targeting older adults in the hospital setting, are needed.