Evaluating glucose-lowering treatment in older people with diabetes: Lessons from the IMPERIUM trial

Exclusion of older persons from randomized controlled trials in type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Prevalence of type 2 diabetes increases with age. Both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) promote the enrollment of older patients to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes. The objective of this study was to assess the eligibility criteria limiting the inclusion of older adults to RCTs in type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov included phase 2, 3 and 4 RCTs of drugs and biologicals, with enrollment ≥100, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and started from 2014 through 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 278/594 (46.8%) trials had a limit of 90 years of age or less (primary outcome). The odds of the age limits were higher in RCTs funded from non-commercial sources (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.83, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.77-4.52; p < 0.001) and phase 2 trials (aOR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.49-3.81; p < 0.001). A total of 542/594 (91.2%) trials had other relevant exclusion criteria, mostly those concerning comorbidities common in older patients (secondary outcome). However, none of the RCTs excluded patients with frailty which is a key factor determining the prognosis of older patients with diabetes. Only two trials enrolled solely older persons.

CONCLUSIONS

Most RCTs in type 2 diabetes have the eligibility criteria limiting the enrollment of older patients. The age limits should be eliminated and patients should be excluded based on scientifically justified criteria especially those concerning comorbidities and frailty. Moreover, the benefits and harms of new drugs in older patients with multimorbidity and/or frailty should be assessed in dedicated phase 4 trials.

Prediabetes Increases the Risk of Frailty in Prefrail Older Adults With Hypertension: Beneficial Effects of Metformin

BACKGROUND

Prediabetes has garnered increasing attention due to its association with cardiovascular conditions, especially hypertension, which heightens the risk of prefrailty and frailty among older individuals.

METHODS

We screened elders with prefrail hypertension from March 2021 to January 2023. We assessed the correlation linking cognitive dysfunction (Montreal Cognitive Assessment score), insulin resistance (triglyceride-to-glucose index), and physical impairment (5-meter gait speed). Then, we measured the risk of developing frailty after a 1-year follow-up period, adjusting the outcome using multivariable Cox regression analysis. We also investigated the impact of administering 500 mg of metformin once daily to a subset of frail subjects for an additional 6 months.

RESULTS

We assessed the relationship between the triglyceride-to-glucose index and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score, observing a significant correlation (r, 0.880; P<0.0001). Similarly, we analyzed the association between the triglyceride-to-glucose index and 5-meter gait speed, uncovering a significant link between insulin resistance and physical impairment (r, 0.809; P<0.0001). Prediabetes was found to significantly (P<0.0001) elevate the risk of frailty development compared with individuals without prediabetes by the end of the 1-year follow-up, a finding confirmed via multivariable analysis with Cox regression. Furthermore, among the subgroup of subjects who developed frailty, those who received metformin exhibited a significant decrease in frailty levels (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin resistance and prediabetes play substantial roles in the development of cognitive and physical impairments, highlighting their importance in managing hypertension, even before the onset of frank diabetes. Metformin, a well-established drug for the treatment of diabetes, has shown favorable effects in mitigating frailty.

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.

Effect of albiglutide on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults: A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

AIM

To analyse the effects of albiglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease who participated in the Harmony Outcomes trial (NCT02465515).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis of the primary endpoint of the Harmony Outcomes trial-time to first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event-in subgroups of participants aged <65 and ≥65 years and <75 and ≥75 years at baseline. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated using Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

The analysis population included 9462 Harmony Outcomes participants, including 4748 patients ≥65 and 1140 patients ≥75 years at baseline. Hazard ratios for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.82) in persons <65 and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.71-1.04) in those ≥65 years (age interaction p = .07), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.91) in <75 and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01) in ≥75 year age groups (interaction p = .6). When analysed as a continuous variable, age did not modify the effect of albiglutide on the primary endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis adds to the body of literature showing that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists added to standard type 2 diabetes therapy safely reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in older adults with established cardiovascular disease. In this analysis, the risk-benefit profile was similar between younger and older age groups treated with albiglutide.

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 and Economic Outcomes in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Dulaglutide Versus Basal Insulin in a Real-World Setting in the United States: The DISPEL-Advance Study

INTRODUCTION

Treatments like glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists carry low hypoglycemia risk and are recommended for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), while some routine treatments, like insulin, increase hypoglycemia risk. The DISPEL-Advance (Dulaglutide vs Basal InSulin in Injection Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Effectiveness in ReaL World) study compared glycemic outcomes, healthcare resource utilization, and costs in elderly patients with T2D who initiated treatment with dulaglutide versus those initiating treatment with basal insulin.

METHODS

This observational, retrospective cohort study used data from the Optum Research Database. Medicare Advantage patients (≥ 65 years) with T2D were assigned to dulaglutide or basal insulin cohorts based on pharmacy claims and propensity score matched on demographic and baseline characteristics. Change in HbA1c, 12-months follow-up HbA1c, and follow-up all-cause and diabetes-related healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching yielded well-balanced cohorts with 1891 patients each (mean age: dulaglutide, 72.09 years; basal insulin, 72.56 years). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly greater mean HbA1c reduction from baseline to follow-up than basal insulin cohort (- 0.95% vs - 0.69%; p < 0.001). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower mean all-cause and diabetes-related medical costs (all-cause: $8306 vs $12,176; diabetes-related: $4681 vs $7582 respectively; p < 0.001) and lower mean all-cause total costs ($18,646 vs $20,972, respectively; p = 0.007) than basal insulin cohort. The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower all-cause and diabetes-related total costs per 1% change in HbA1c than basal insulin cohort (all-cause: $19,729 vs $30,334; diabetes-related: $12,842 vs $17,288, respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients with T2D initiating dulaglutide had greater HbA1c reduction, lower mean all-cause medical and total costs, lower diabetes-related medical costs, and lower total all-cause and diabetes-related costs per 1% change in HbA1c than patients initiating basal insulin. Future studies assessing medications that do not increase hypoglycemia risk could help inform therapeutic strategies in elderly patients.

Cardiorenal outcomes, kidney function, and other safety outcomes with ertugliflozin in older adults with type 2 diabetes (VERTIS CV): secondary analyses from a randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

VERTIS CV was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre cardiovascular outcomes trial that evaluated the cardiovascular efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin in adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The primary objective of VERTIS CV was to show non-inferiority of ertugliflozin to placebo with respect to the primary outcome, major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke). The analyses reported here aimed to assess cardiorenal outcomes, kidney function, and other safety outcomes with ertugliflozin in older adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease compared with younger participants.

METHODS

VERTIS CV was done at 567 centres in 34 countries. Participants (aged ≥40 years) with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to once-daily ertugliflozin 5 mg, ertugliflozin 15 mg, or placebo in addition to background standard-of-care treatment. Random assignment was done with the use of an interactive voice-response system. The study outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalisation for heart failure or cardiovascular death, cardiovascular death, hospitalisation for heart failure, prespecified kidney composite outcomes, kidney function, and other assessments of safety. Cardiorenal outcomes, kidney function, and safety outcomes were evaluated by baseline age (≥65 years and <65 years [prespecified] and ≥75 years and <75 years [post hoc]). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01986881.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 13, 2013, and July 31, 2015, and between June 1, 2016, and April 14, 2017, 8246 adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were recruited to the study and randomly assigned. 2752 patients were assigned to ertugliflozin 5 mg, 2747 patients to ertugliflozin 15 mg, and 2747 patients to placebo. 8238 participants received at least one dose of ertugliflozin 5 mg, ertugliflozin 15 mg, or placebo. 4145 (50·3%) of 8238 participants were aged 65 years and older, including 903 (11·0%) participants aged 75 years and older. 5764 (70·0%) of 8238 participants were male and 2474 (30·0%) were female, and 7233 (87·8%) of 8238 participants were White, 497 (6·0%) were Asian, 235 (2·9%) were Black, and 273 (3·3%) were classified as other. The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower and the type 2 diabetes duration longer for those aged 65 years and older versus those younger than 65 years, and for those aged 75 years and older versus those younger than 75 years. Cardiovascular outcomes were more common in the older age subgroups than in the younger age subgroups. Similar to the overall VERTIS CV cohort, ertugliflozin did not increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure, cardiovascular death alone, or the kidney composite outcome (using doubling of serum creatinine, dialysis or transplantation, or kidney death), and reduced the risk of hospitalisation for heart failure and the exploratory kidney composite outcome (using a 40% sustained eGFR decrease, dialysis or transplantation, or kidney death) in the older age subgroups (p_interaction>0·05 for outcomes assessed). A slower decline in eGFR and a smaller increase in the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio were observed over time in all age subgroups taking ertugliflozin compared with placebo. Across age subgroups, safety outcomes were consistent with the known profile of ertugliflozin.

INTERPRETATION

The effects of ertugliflozin on cardiorenal outcomes, kidney function, and safety outcomes were generally similar across age subgroups. These results have the potential to help clinical decision making by providing a longer-term evaluation of the cardiorenal safety and overall tolerability of ertugliflozin in a large population of older adults.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA in collaboration with Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.

Diabetes and Frailty: An Expert Consensus Statement on the Management of Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Prognosis and appropriate treatment goals for older adults with diabetes vary greatly according to frailty. It is now recognised that changes may be needed to diabetes management in some older people. Whilst there is clear guidance on the evaluation of frailty and subsequent target setting for people living with frailty, there remains a lack of formal guidance for healthcare professionals in how to achieve these targets. The management of older adults with type 2 diabetes is complicated by comorbidities, shortened life expectancy and exaggerated consequences of adverse effects from treatment. In particular, older adults are more prone to hypoglycaemia and are more vulnerable to its consequences, including falls, fractures, hospitalisation, cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Thus, assessment of frailty should be a routine component of a diabetes review for all older adults, and glycaemic targets and therapeutic choices should be modified accordingly. Evidence suggests that over-treatment of older adults with type 2 diabetes is common, with many having had their regimens intensified over preceding years when they were in better health, or during more recent acute hospital admissions when their blood glucose levels might have been atypically high, and nutritional intake may vary. In addition, assistance in taking medications, as often occurs in later life following implementation of community care strategies or admittance to a care home, may dramatically improve treatment adherence, leading to a fall in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. As a person with diabetes gets older, simplification, switching or de-escalation of the therapeutic regimen may be necessary, depending on their level of frailty and HbA1c levels. Consideration should be given, in particular, to de-escalation of therapies that may induce hypoglycaemia, such as sulphonylureas and shorter-acting insulins. We discuss the use of available glucose-lowering therapies in older adults and recommend simple glycaemic management algorithms according to their level of frailty.

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for older people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To assess the cardiovascular effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in older people with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched up to November 2020 for cardiovascular outcomes trials with GLP-1 RAs or SGLT2 inhibitors that reported results for older patients with type 2 diabetes. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for different age subgroup categories.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies (93,502 patients) were included. Consistent with their effect in the overall population, in patients ≥65 years, GLP-1 RAs reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.92), cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. In the same age subgroup, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced MACE (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) but had a neutral effect on its components. They also reduced heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.76), an effect that was not evident in patients <65 years, and the composite renal endpoint (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.77). Meta-analyses for patients ≥75 years yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

In older adults with diabetes, GLP-1 RAs reduced MACE and its components. SGLT2 inhibitors reduced MACE, and heart failure and renal outcomes.

Glucose Control, Sulfonylureas, and Insulin Treatment in Elderly People With Type 2 Diabetes and Risk of Severe Hypoglycemia and Death: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the relative and absolute risk of severe hypoglycemia and mortality associated with glucose control, sulfonylureas, and insulin treatment in elderly people with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We identified elderly subjects (≥70 years old) with type 2 diabetes between 2000 and 2017 in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink primary care database with linkage to hospitalization and death data. Subjects with three consecutive HbA_1c values <7% (53 mmol/mol) while on insulin and/or sulfonylureas within 60 days prior to the third HbA_1c value (exposed) were matched with subjects not exposed. Hazard ratios (HRs) and absolute risks were estimated for hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia and cardiovascular and noncardiovascular-related mortality.

RESULTS

Among 22,857 included subjects (6,288 [27.5%] exposed, of whom 5,659 [90.0%] were on a sulfonylurea), 10,878 (47.6%) deaths and 1,392 (6.1%) severe hypoglycemic episodes occurred during the follow-up. In comparison with nonexposed subjects, the adjusted HR in exposed subjects was 2.52 (95% CI 2.23, 2.84) for severe hypoglycemia, 0.98 (0.91, 1.06) for cardiovascular mortality, and 1.05 (0.99, 1.11) for noncardiovascular mortality. In a 70-, 75-, 80-, and 85-year-old subject, the 10-year risk of severe hypoglycemia was 7.7%, 8.1%, 8.6%, and 8.4% higher than in nonexposed subjects, while differences for noncardiovascular mortality ranged from 1.2% (95% CI -0.1, 2.5) in a 70-year-old to 1.6% (-0.2, 3.4) in an 85-year-old subject. Sulfonylurea and insulin use were more relevant predictors of severe hypoglycemia and death than were glucose levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly subjects with type 2 diabetes and low HbA_1c on sulfonylurea or insulin treatment experienced a substantially higher risk of hospitalization for severe hypoglycemia but had no clear evidence of increased risks of mortality.

Cardiovascular outcomes and safety with linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared with the sulphonylurea glimepiride in older people with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the randomized CAROLINA trial

AIM

To compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of linagliptin with glimepiride in older and younger participants in the CAROLINA trial in both prespecified and post hoc analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

People aged 40 to 85 years with relatively early type 2 diabetes, inadequate glycaemic control and elevated CV risk were randomly assigned to linagliptin 5 mg or glimepiride 1 to 4 mg. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of three-point major adverse CV events (MACE: CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke). We evaluated clinical and safety outcomes across age groups.

RESULTS

Of 6033 participants, 50.7% were aged <65 years, 35.3% were aged 65 to 74 years, and 14.0% were aged ≥75 years. During the 6.3-year median follow-up, CV/mortality outcomes did not differ between linagliptin and glimepiride overall (hazard ratio [HR] for three-point MACE 0.98, 95.47% confidence interval [CI] 0.84, 1.14) or across age groups (interaction P >0.05). Between treatment groups, reductions in glycated haemoglobin were comparable across age groups but moderate-to-severe hypoglycaemia was markedly reduced with linagliptin (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.15, 0.21) with no differences among age groups (P = 0.23). Mean weight was -1.54 kg (95% CI -1.80, -1.28) lower for linagliptin versus glimepiride. Adverse events increased with age, but were generally balanced between treatment groups. Significantly fewer falls or fractures occurred with linagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin and glimepiride were comparable for CV/mortality outcomes across age groups. Linagliptin had significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia and falls or fractures than glimepiride, including in "older-old" individuals for whom these are particularly important treatment considerations.

New hypoglycaemic therapy in frail older people with diabetes mellitus-phenotypic status likely to be more important than functional status

Frail older people are largely excluded from clinical trials and therefore glycaemic targets and optimum hypoglycaemic therapy in this group has not been fully investigated. Guidelines generally recommend tight glycaemic control in functionally fit individuals and relaxed targets in frail ones mainly due to the fear of hypoglycaemia. The newly introduced sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and the glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists have shown benefit that is independent of glycaemic control and a minimal risk of hypoglycaemia. However, guidelines still express caution about its use in frail older people due to fear of other side effects such as weight loss, hypotension and falls. Some frail older people will miss out on the benefits of this new therapy if frailty is considered as a one entity with a blanket application of guidelines. We propose that frailty should be viewed as two distinct metabolically different phenotypes, the sarcopenic-obese, in which new therapy will improve their metabolic profile and should be liberally used if no contraindications, and the anorexic-malnourished phenotype in which the new therapy should be cautiously considered. In other words, glycaemic targets should be driven by individual's overall function but the use of new therapy should be driven by frailty phenotype.

Evaluating glucose-lowering treatment in older people with diabetes: Lessons from the IMPERIUM trial

Understanding the benefits and risks of treatments to be used by older individuals (≥65 years old) is critical for informed therapeutic decisions. Glucose-lowering therapy for older patients with diabetes should be tailored to suit their clinical condition, comorbidities and impaired functional status, including varying degrees of frailty. However, despite the rapidly growing population of older adults with diabetes, there are few dedicated clinical trials evaluating glucose-lowering treatment in older people. Conducting clinical trials in the older population poses multiple significant challenges. Despite the general agreement that individualizing treatment goals and avoiding hypoglycaemia is paramount for the therapy of older people with diabetes, there are conflicting perspectives on specific glycaemic targets that should be adopted and on use of specific drugs and treatment strategies. Assessment of functional status, frailty and comorbidities is not routinely performed in diabetes trials, contributing to insufficient characterization of older study participants. Moreover, significant operational barriers and problems make successful enrolment and completion of such studies difficult. In this review paper, we summarize the current guidelines and literature on conducting such trials, as well as the learnings from our own clinical trial (IMPERIUM) that assessed different glucose-lowering strategies in older people with type 2 diabetes. We discuss the importance of strategies to improve study design, enrolment and attrition. Apart from summarizing some practical advice to facilitate the successful conduct of studies, we highlight key gaps and needs that warrant further research.