Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly: special considerations

Diabetic Pneumopathy- A Novel Diabetes-associated Complication: Pathophysiology, the Underlying Mechanism and Combination Medication

BACKGROUND

The "diabetic lung" has been identified as a possible target organ in diabetes, with abnormalities in ventilation control, bronchomotor tone, lung volume, pulmonary diffusing capacity, and neuroadrenergic bronchial innervation.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes studies related to diabetic pneumopathy, pathophysiology and a number of pulmonary disorders including type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted on databases such as Pub Med, Wiley Online Library (WOL), Scopus, Elsevier, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar using standard keywords "diabetes," "diabetes Pneumopathy," "Pathophysiology," "Lung diseases," "lung infection" for review articles published between 1978 to 2023 very few previous review articles based their focus on diabetic pneumopathy and its pathophysiology.

RESULTS

Globally, the incidence of diabetes mellitus has been rising. It is a chronic, progressive metabolic disease. The "diabetic lung" may serve as a model of accelerated ageing since diabetics' rate of respiratory function deterioration is two to three-times higher than that of normal, non-smoking people.

CONCLUSION

Diabetes-induced pulmonary dysfunction has not gained the attention it deserves due to a lack of proven causality and changes in cellular properties. The mechanism underlying a particular lung illness can still only be partially activated by diabetes but there is evidence that hyperglycemia is linked to pulmonary fibrosis in diabetic people.

Use of continuous glucose monitoring in insulin-treated older adults with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Few studies have reported the adherence to and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for improving diabetes management in insulin-treated older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Prospective observational cohort study using FreeStyle Libre Flash CGM in insulin-treated adults > 65 years with T2DM and HbA1c between 7% and 9%. The participants wore the CGM during the 6-weeks study period. The primary outcome was time in range (TIR) between 70 and 180 mg/dL. Secondary outcomes included time below range (TBR), glycemic variability (GV), adherence, and use of glucose data for self-insulin adjustment. Linear regressions with random effects verified the changes in TBR, TIR, time above range (TAR), GV, and GMI across the three visits using CGM (baseline, 4 weeks and 6 weeks), controlled for sex, age, educational level, and health system (private or public).

RESULTS

A total of 66 participants completed the six weeks of CGM (age 72·8 ± 5·3 years; BMI 27·8 ± 3·6 kg/m2), HbA1c: 8·0 ± 0·6%, with an overall sensor utilization of 93·1 ± 6·0%. We observed a stability in TIR (baseline: 63.5 ± 18.9% vs. endpoint: 65.5 ± 18.8%; β = 1,0, p = 0.190). Despite the low TBR at the baseline, we observed statistically significant reduction over the study period (baseline: 5.8 ± 7.0% vs. endpoint: 3.8 ± 4.7%; (β=-1.00, p = 0.008). Glucose variability also reduced from the baseline (34.9 ± 7.2%) to the endpoint (33.0 ± 6.8%) (β=-0.99, p = < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

FreeStyle Libre Flash CGM is well accepted by older adults with T2DM and allows participants to make therapeutic decisions to reduce TBR and glycemic variability.

Efficacy and Safety of IDegAsp Versus BIAsp 30, Both Twice Daily, in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Post Hoc Analysis of Two Phase 3 Randomized Controlled BOOST Trials

INTRODUCTION

The majority of elderly patients (≥ 65 years of age) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) will eventually require insulin therapy, but they are particularly vulnerable to hypoglycemia and challenging to treat. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a novel co-formulation of 70% insulin degludec and 30% insulin aspart administered in a single injection, either once or twice daily with main meals.

METHODS

A combined analysis of the phase 3 BOOST INTENSIFY PREMIX I (NCT01009580) and BOOST INTENSIFY ALL (NCT01059812) trials has previously reported lower rates of hypoglycemia during the maintenance period in patients with T2DM treated with IDegAsp twice daily (BID) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) BID. This post hoc analysis examined the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in elderly patients from the global population of these two trials, and also from the Japanese cohort of BOOST INTENSIFY ALL.

RESULTS

Change in HbA1c was similar for IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 (p > 0.5). Compared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp resulted in significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose (p  < 0.0001), numerically lower rates of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia (global estimated rate ratios: 0.92 [0.67; 1.26]95% confidence interval [CI], p  = 0.5980 and 0.67 [0.39; 1.18]95% CI, p  = 0.1676, respectively), and a significantly lower total daily insulin dose at end of trial (global estimated treatment difference 0.79 [0.73; 0.87]95% CI, p  < 0.0001) in elderly patients.

CONCLUSION

The results described here are consistent with those of the overall trial populations, demonstrating that IDegAsp BID is efficacious in elderly patients and suggesting that there is no need for special safety precautions.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT01009580 and NCT01059812. Plain language summary available for this article.

Effects of saxagliptin on glucose homeostasis and body composition of obese patients with newly diagnosed pre-diabetes

AIMS

To assess the effect of saxagliptin monotherapy on blood glucose and islet β-cell function in obese patients with newly diagnosed pre-diabetes and abnormal fat metabolism.

METHODS

A 24-week, randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 25 obese subjects with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and/or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (mean age 45years) to receive lifestyle intervention only (control group) or combined with saxagliptin 2.5mg or 5mg daily (S2.5 or S5 group), metformin 1500mg daily (Met group). Anthropometrics, body fat and biochemical parameters were measured before and after 4, 12 and 24weeks intervention.

RESULTS

S5 group and Met group showed a significant decrease in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c compared with the control group (all P<0.05) after 24-week intervention. However, the decrease in 2h postprandial plasma glucose levels (2hPPG) in S5 group were greater compared with control group (P<0.01). Insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was reduced in S5 group, Met group and control group (P<0.05), and the β-cell function (HOMA-β) was improved in all groups (P<0.05). However, the changes in obesity-related indicators including waist circumference, hip circumference, weight, BMI, body fat, percentage of body fat and waist-to-hip fat ratio were greate in Met group (all P<0.05) compared with other groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Saxagliptin monotherapy may prevent or delay the progression of IGT or IFG to type 2 diabetes mellitus in obese patients with newly diagnosed pre-diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01960205.

HYPERGLYCEMIA AND HYPOGLYCEMIA IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETES IN SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES

OBJECTIVE

Endocrinologists are faced with a growing elderly patient population with diabetes mellitus (DM), some of whom are in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). Efforts at managing their DM is hampered by concerns for hypoglycemia. This study aimed to determine the frequency of hypo- and hyperglycemia in SNFs, and associated factors.

METHODS

We reviewed medical records of 200 consecutive residents admitted to two SNFs in the Cleveland area in 2014 with documented DM, aged ≥65 years. Data collected included blood glucose (BG) levels and DM regimens. Frequency of hyper- and hypoglycemic events was noted. Since patients had different frequencies of BG checks, event-days were calculated.

RESULTS

Mean age, BG, and glycated hemoglobin (±SD) were as follows: 80.2 ± 8.2 years, 172.4 ± 40.3 mg/dL, and 7.5 ± 1.9% (59 mmol/mol), respectively. Seventy-one percent were on insulin alone, 15.5% on insulin and oral diabetes agents, and 13.5% on oral diabetes agent on admission. Patients with at least one event were as follows: 38% hypoglycemia, 3.5% severe hypoglycemia, 90.5% hyperglycemia, and 15% severe hyperglycemia. Event-days were: 3.4% hypoglycemia and 52.4% hyperglycemia. Risk of hypoglycemia was highest with concomitant sulfonylurea and prandial or sliding-scale insulin. Hyperglycemia risk was high in basal insulin-containing regimens.

CONCLUSION

Hypoglycemia was seen in one-third of patients, and hyperglycemia was common despite insulin use. Concomitant use of sulfonylurea and prandial or sliding-scale insulin is best avoided in this fragile population with hypo- and hyperglycemia.

ABBREVIATIONS

ADA = American Diabetes Association BG = blood glucose DM = diabetes mellitus GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1 HBA1c = glycated hemoglobin LOS = length of stay NPH = neutral protamine Hagedorn SNF = skilled nursing facility SSI = sliding-scale insulin.

Cost-effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor monotherapy in elderly type 2 diabetes patients in Thailand

BACKGROUND

The management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in elderly population poses many challenges. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors show particular promise due to excellent tolerability profiles, low risk of hypoglycemia, and little effect on body weight. This study evaluated, from the health care system's perspective, the long-term cost-effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy vs metformin and sulfonylurea (SFU) monotherapy in Thai elderly T2DM patients.

METHODS

The clinical efficacy was estimated from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Baseline cohort characteristics and cost parameters were obtained from published studies and hospital databases in Thailand. A validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model version 8.5 was used to project clinical and economic outcomes over a lifetime horizon using a 3% annual discount rate. Costs were expressed in 2014 Thai Baht (THB) (US dollar value). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Base-case assumptions were assessed through several sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

For treating elderly T2DM patients, DPP-4 inhibitors were more expensive and less effective, ie, a dominated strategy, than the metformin monotherapy. Compared with SFU, treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors gained 0.031 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a total cost incurred over THB113,701 or US$3,449.67, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of THB3.63 million or US$110,133.50 per QALY. At the acceptable Thai ceiling threshold of THB160,000/QALY (US$4,854.37/QALY), DPP-4 inhibitors were not a cost-effective treatment.

CONCLUSION

DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment for elderly T2DM patients compared with metformin monotherapy and SFU monotherapy, given current resource constraints in Thailand.

Hospitalization of elderly diabetic patients: characteristics, reasons for admission, and gender differences

Background

Understanding the differences in characteristics, gender, and common causes for admission in hospitalized elderly diabetic patients provides a theoretical basis for their successful management. This study explored the reasons and gender differences in hospitalizations of elderly patients with diabetes mellitus.

Methods

Patients aged ≥60 years who had received a diagnosis of diabetes by the time of discharge, from 1 January 2011 to 1 January 2014, were retrospectively enrolled. Hospitalization data of the patients were collected, and reasons for hospitalization were analyzed based on chief complaints and principle diagnosis.

Results

The most frequent reasons stated for admission were related to the chronic complications of diabetes (42.1 %), seconded by hyperglycemia (26.4 %) and infection (15.7 %). Ketonuria, ketonemia, or diabetic ketoacidosis was more commonly seen in women than men, whereas diabetic nephropathy and neoplasms were more frequently found in men than women. Regarding infection as a cause of hospitalization, the 4 main types were respiratory tract (44.5 %), urinary tract (20.3 %), gastrointestinal (14.8 %), and skin and soft tissue (10.9 %). Respiratory tract infection was significantly more common in men (61.4 %) than women (31 %, P = 0.001), whereas urinary tract infection was more frequent in women (29.6 %) than men (8.8 %, P = 0.004).

Conclusion

The most frequent reasons for hospital admission in elderly diabetic patients were chronic complications of diabetes, hyperglycemia, and infection. Men and women differed in reasons for hospital admission.

Efficacy, safety and impact on β-cell function of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and the difference between Asians and Caucasians: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the efficacy, safety and impact on β-cell function of DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin in T2DM patients and their difference between Asians and Caucasians.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search (from 1 January 2000 to 14 April 2015) for RCTs of DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy in T2DM.

RESULTS

A total of 27 RCTs were included. Compared with metformin, DPP-4 inhibitor plus metformin therapy was associated with higher reduction in HbA1c [-0.61 %, -0.69 to -0.52], FPG [-1.10 mmol/l, -1.29 to -0.92], TC [-0.11 mmol/l, -0.20 to -0.02], TG [-0.21 mmol/l, -0.33 to -0.10], HOMA-IR [-0.19, -0.36 to -0.02], gastrointestinal adverse events [OR 0.86, 0.77-0.97] and higher increment in HOMA-β [10.21, 7.73-12.69]. Comparison of HbA1c, FPG, body weight and HOMA-IR changes between Asian and Caucasian patients did not show a significant between-group difference of -0.05 % (-0.30, 0.20; P = 0.69), 0.17 mmol/l (-0.52, 0.85; P = 0.62), -0.15 kg (-0.64, 0.35; P = 0.53) and 0.27 (-0.98, 1.53; P = 0.64) compared with metformin. Comparisons of HOMA-β between Asian and Caucasian patients showed a significant between-group difference of -7.68 (-14.95, -0.42; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin therapy was effective and safe for T2DM patients. The glucose-lowering efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors was same in Asian and Caucasian patients, although the effect on HOMA-β was inferior in Asian patients. The effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on HOMA-IR and body weight in Asian patients was comparable with that observed in Caucasian patients.

Ayurpharmacoepidemiology Perspective: Health Literacy (Knowledge and Practice) Among Older Diabetes Patients Visiting Ayurveda Teaching Hospitals in India

Older Indian diabetics lack proper health literacy making them vulnerable to complications. Assessment of health literacy was done by hospital-based cross-sectional study. Face-to-face interview was conducted by pretested structured questionnaires. Diabetes patients aged ≥60 years consisted of 56.22% males and 43.78% females; in addition, 34.2% respondents were without formal schooling. Diabetes was known to 63.56% respondents. Total knowledge and practice score of the respondents was good (18.9% and 35.1%), average (30.7% and 46.9%), and poor (50.4% and 18%), respectively. Knowledge and practice score was strongly associated ( P < .01) with religion, educational status, and diabetes duration with positive relationship ( R² = 0.247, P < .01) between knowledge and practice score. The study highlights lack of health literacy among older diabetics undergoing ayurveda management. Baseline statistics will pave the way toward ayurpharmacoepidemiology.

Management of diabetes in the elderly

Management of diabetes in the elderly necessitates careful consideration of concomitant geriatric syndromes and comorbid conditions that increase the risk of complications, including severe hypoglycemia. Whereas healthy older adults can use therapeutic approaches recommended for their younger counterparts, treatment plans for frail elderly patients need to be simplified and A1c and blood pressure goals relaxed with the development of impairments in function, cognition, vision, and dexterity. The goals of diabetes management in the elderly should be to maintain quality of life and minimize symptomatic hyperglycemia and drug side effects, including hypoglycemia.

A Post Hoc Analysis of HbA1c, Hypoglycemia, and Weight Change Outcomes with Alogliptin vs Glipizide in Older Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Adverse events and complications limit the long-term use of current antidiabetic treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), particularly for older adults who are often receiving therapy for other comorbid conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, alogliptin, versus glipizide, a sulfonylurea, in achieving glycemic control without the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, or both in older patients with T2DM.

METHODS

This was an exploratory, post hoc analysis of a global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study comparing alogliptin and glipizide. Patients (n = 441) aged 65-90 years with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 6.5-9.0% who failed on diet and exercise alone or who had inadequately controlled T2DM despite oral antidiabetic monotherapy were recruited from 110 sites across 15 countries. Alogliptin 25 mg (n = 222) or glipizide 5 mg up-titrated to 10 mg (n = 219) was administered once daily for 52 weeks. Composite endpoints of HbA1c ≤7.0% coupled with the absence of hypoglycemia and weight gain, or an HbA1c reduction of ≥0.5% in the absence of hypoglycemia and weight gain, were then measured.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis, least squares mean HbA1c changes from baseline to Week 52 were similar in both the alogliptin and glipizide groups. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c ≤7.0% without hypoglycemia or weight gain was significantly higher for alogliptin versus glipizide (24% vs 13%, p < 0.03). Patients with a baseline HbA1c of <8.0% receiving alogliptin were also more likely to achieve HbA1c ≤7.0% without hypoglycemia or weight gain than those receiving glipizide (29% vs 13%, p < 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Alogliptin demonstrated similar efficacy to glipizide in lowering HbA1c in older patients with T2DM, but with significantly more patients achieving an HbA1c ≤7.0% without hypoglycemia or an increase in body weight. These results particularly apply to patients with baseline HbA1c below 8.0%.

FUNDING

The study was sponsored by Takeda Global Research & Development Center, Inc., Deerfield, IL, and Takeda Global Research and Development Centre Ltd., London, United Kingdom.

Achieving glycemic control in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a critical comparison of current options

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing in the elderly. Because of the unique characteristics of elderly people with T2DM, therapeutic strategy and focus should be tailored to suit this population. This article reviews the guidelines and studies related to older people with T2DM worldwide. A few important themes are generalized: 1) the functional and cognitive status is critical for older people with T2DM considering their life expectancy compared to younger counterparts; 2) both severe hypoglycemia and persistent hyperglycemia are deleterious to older adults with T2DM, and both conditions should be avoided when determining therapeutic goals; 3) recently developed guidelines emphasize the avoidance of hypoglycemic episodes in older people, even in the absence of symptoms. In addition, we raise the concern of glycemic variability, and discuss the rationale for the selection of current options in managing this patient population.

Use of basal insulin and the associated clinical outcomes among elderly nursing home residents with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a retrospective chart review study

BACKGROUND

The management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in long-term care (LTC) settings can be complex as a result of age-related complications. Despite guideline recommendations, sliding scale insulin remains commonplace in the LTC setting and data on basal insulin use are lacking.

METHODS

This retrospective study used medical chart data and the Minimum Data Set from elderly LTC facility patients who received basal insulin (insulin glargine, insulin detemir, or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin) for the treatment of diabetes, to investigate the practice patterns and associated clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2,096 elderly, insulin-treated patients in LTC were identified, with 59.5% of them (N=1,247) receiving basal insulin. Of these, more than 50% of patients received sliding scale insulin in co-administration with basal insulin. Despite its ease of use, insulin pen use was very low, at 14.6%. Significant differences were observed between the basal insulin groups for glycated hemoglobin level and dosing frequency. Hypoglycemia was uncommon -17.2% of patients experienced at least one event, and there was no significant difference in the prevalence of hypoglycemia between the groups.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest the underutilization of basal insulin in the LTC setting and worryingly high combinational use with sliding scale insulin. Differences in glycated hemoglobin and dosing frequencies between types of basal insulin warrant further comparative effectiveness studies.

Glycemic targets and medication limitations for type 2 diabetes mellitus in the older adult

OBJECTIVE

To review the optimal management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the older adult.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search was completed to identify publications in the English language from 1947 to 2013 using combinations of the search terms: geriatrics, aged, diabetes mellitus, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. References of articles were also reviewed for inclusion if not identified in the PubMed search.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Original studies, clinical reviews, and guidelines were identified and evaluated for clinical relevance.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Although the number of older adults with T2DM is growing, evidence for the treatment of T2DM in this population is lacking. Barriers such as polypharmacy, comorbid conditions, economic limitations, cognitive impairment, and increased risk of hypoglycemia may limit optimal glycemic control in older adults. Several organizations provide recommendations for glycemic targets and recommend using standard glycemic goals in most healthy older adults. However, less stringent goals are necessary in certain older populations such as those patients with limited life expectancy and severe hypoglycemia. In general, glycemic goals should be individualized in older patients. Age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes, comorbid conditions, adverse drug reactions, ease of medication administration, and cost of medications necessitate the need to individualize pharmacologic therapy.

CONCLUSION

Glycemic targets and medication use for T2DM should be individualized in older adults.

Effects of glucose and blood pressure control on diabetic kidney disease in old patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

We determined the influence of age on the effects of glucose and blood pressure control on diabetic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 721 patients with type 2 diabetes, aged 41-85 years and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥30 mL/ [min · 1.73 m(2)], were enrolled in this study between August 2001 and December 2002. All participants were followed up at our clinics until December 31, 2010. Primary outcomes were the development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were the development of clinical albuminuria and a severe decline in eGFR.

RESULTS

During the follow-up period (median: 8.3 years), 27 (3.7%) patients developed ESRD, 130 (18.0%) patients died without developing ESRD, and 16 (2.2%) patients died after developing ESRD. Mortality rate increased with age, but the incidence rate of ESRD did not. Poor glucose and blood pressure control was associated with the development of clinical albuminuria and with a severe decline in eGFR in younger patients with diabetes, but not in older patients. The development of severe decline in eGFR and ESRD was significantly lower in the middle tertile of blood pressure (i.e., SBP of 128-141 mm Hg) in older patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate glucose and blood pressure control did not reduce the risk of ESRD; however, it may have delayed the onset of clinical albuminuria as well as eGFR decline in younger patients with type 2 diabetes.

Durability of glycemic control with insulin lispro mix 75/25 versus insulin glargine for older patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few studies have evaluated long-term durability of glycemic control in older patients. The aim of this study was to compare durability of glycemic control of twice-daily insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25; 75 % insulin lispro protamine suspension, 25 % insulin lispro) and once-daily insulin glargine (GL) added to oral antihyperglycemic medications in older patients (≥65 years of age).

METHODS

Patients were participants in the maintenance phase of the DURABLE trial. During the initiation phase, patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to LM75/25 or GL. After 6 months, patients with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤7.0 % advanced to the 24-month maintenance phase. The primary objective was between-group comparison of duration of maintaining the HbA1c goal in older patients (≥65 years of age). A similar analysis was conducted for older patients achieving HbA1c ≤6.5 % in the initiation phase.

RESULTS

Median time of maintaining HbA1c goal was longer in LM75/25 versus GL (19.6 versus 15.4 months, p = 0.007) and more LM75/25 patients maintained goal versus GL (49.2 versus 30.4 %; p = 0.003). HbA1c reduction from baseline was greater in LM75/25 versus GL (-1.56 ± 0.10 versus -1.24 ± 0.11 %; p = 0.003). Post-meal glucose was significantly lower in LM75/25 versus GL (158.86 ± 3.42 versus 171.67 ± 4.51 mg/dL; p = 0.017). No differences were observed in overall and severe hypoglycemia. LM75/25 patients had higher daily insulin doses (0.41 ± 0.02 versus 0.32 ± 0.02 units/kg/day; p < 0.001) and more weight gain (5.47 ± 0.49 versus 3.10 ± 0.53 kg; p = 0.001). Similar results were generally obtained in older patients with HbA1c ≤6.5 %.

CONCLUSIONS

In our evaluation of older patients from a larger trial, LM75/25 appeared to provide longer durability of glycemic control, as well as a greater number of patients maintaining HbA1c goal versus GL.

Efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis

AIMS

This meta-analysis was performed to provide an update on the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We conducted a search on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Collaborative database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin as initial combination therapy or as monotherapy in patients with T2DM by the end of December 2012, using the key words 'alogliptin', 'dutogliptin', 'linagliptin', 'saxagliptin', 'sitagliptin', 'vildagliptin' and 'metformin'. RCTs were selected for meta-analysis if (1) they were RCTs comparing DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin as initial combination therapy or DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy to metformin monotherapy, (2) duration of treatment was ≥12 weeks and (3) reported data on haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) change, weight change, adverse cardiovascular (CV) events, hypoglycaemia or gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

A total of eight RCTs were included. Compared with metformin monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors monotherapy was associated with lower reduction in HbA1c level [weighted mean differences (MD) = 0.28, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (0.17, 0.40), p < 0.00001], lower reduction in FPG level [MD = 0.81, 95% CI(0.60, 1.02), p <0.00001], lower weight loss [MD = 1.51, 95% CI (0.89, 2.13), p < 0.00001], but lower risk of adverse CV events [risk ratio (RR) = 0.36, 95% CI (0.15, 0.85), p = 0.02], lower risk of hypoglycaemia [RR = 0.44, 95% CI (0.27, 0.72), p = 0.001] and lower risk of gastrointestinal AEs [RR = 0.63, 95% CI(0.55, 0.70), p <0.00001]. Compared with metformin monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin as initial combination therapy was associated with higher reduction in HbA1c level [MD = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.57, -0.40), p < 0.00001], higher reduction in FPG level [MD = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.87, -0.74), p < 0.00001], lower weight loss [MD = 0.44, 95% CI (0.22, 0.67), p = 0.0001]; but was not associated with a further reduction in adverse CV events [RR=0.54, 95% CI (0.25, 1.19), p = 0.13], nor the higher risk of hypoglycaemia [RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.72, 1.50), p = 0.82], nor the prolonged risk of gastrointestinal AEs [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.88, 1.10), p = 0.77].

CONCLUSIONS

DPP-4 inhibitors, which are safe and effective in controlling the blood glucose, may possibly decrease the risk of CV events in patients with T2DM. It could be a credible alternative for T2DM patients who, for some reason, cannot use metformin, or are in high risk of CV exposure. High-quality, large sample and long-term follow-up clinical trails are needed to confirm the long-term conclusions.

Alogliptin versus glipizide monotherapy in elderly type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with mild hyperglycaemia: a prospective, double-blind, randomized, 1-year study

AIM

To prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of alogliptin versus glipizide in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) over 1 year of treatment.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study of elderly T2DM patients (aged 65-90 years) with mild hyperglycaemia on diet/exercise therapy alone [glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 6.5-9.0%] or plus oral antidiabetic monotherapy (HbA1c 6.5-8.0%). Patients were randomized to once-daily alogliptin 25 mg or glipizide 5 mg titrated to 10 mg, if needed. Hypoglycaemic episodes were systematically captured under predefined criteria.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis, HbA1c mean changes from a baseline of 7.5% were -0.14% with alogliptin (n = 222) and -0.09% with glipizide (n = 219) at the end of the study, demonstrating non-inferiority of alogliptin to glipizide [least squares (LS) mean difference = -0.05%; one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI): -∞, 0.13%]. More clinically relevant HbA1c reductions occurred among patients who completed the study: -0.42 and -0.33% with alogliptin and glipizide, with non-inferiority again confirmed (LS mean difference = -0.09%; one-sided 97.5% CI: -∞, 0.07%). Overall, alogliptin was safe and well tolerated, with notably fewer hypoglycaemic episodes than glipizide [5.4% (31 episodes) vs. 26.0% (232 episodes), respectively]; three patients experienced severe hypoglycaemia, all with glipizide. Alogliptin also resulted in favourable weight changes versus glipizide (-0.62 vs. 0.60 kg at week 52; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin monotherapy maintained glycaemic control comparable to that of glipizide in elderly patients with T2DM over 1 year of treatment, with substantially lower risk of hypoglycaemia and without weight gain.

Observational study of once-daily insulin detemir in people with type 2 diabetes aged 75 years or older: a sub-analysis of data from the Study of Once daily LeVEmir (SOLVE)

OBJECTIVES

Older patients are particularly vulnerable to hypoglycaemia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the response to initiation of once-daily insulin detemir in patients aged ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with one or more oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

A sub-analysis was conducted using data from SOLVE (Study of Once daily LeVEmir), a 24-week observational study involving 3,219 investigators and 2,817 project sites from ten countries. Routine clinical practice was followed; there were no study-prescribed procedures. The total cohort comprised 17,374 participants, of whom 2,398 (14 %) were aged ≥75 years. The physicians collected information from patient recall, the patients' medical records and their self-monitored blood glucose diaries (if kept).

RESULTS

Pre-insulin glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was similar between participants aged ≥75 years and those aged <75 years (HbA(1c) 8.8 ± 1.5 % vs. 8.9 ± 1.6 % [mean ± SD], respectively). After 24 weeks of treatment, similar reductions in HbA(1c) were observed in the two subgroups: 7.6 ± 1.1 % and 7.5 ± 1.2 % in participants aged ≥75 years and those aged <75 years, respectively. The incidence of severe hypoglycaemia (episodes per patient-year) decreased during the study in both age groups (from 0.057 to 0.007 in patients aged ≥75 years; from 0.042 to 0.005 in patients aged <75 years), while minor hypoglycaemia increased from 1.1 to 2.0 and from 1.7 to 1.8 episodes per patient-year in the older and younger age groups, respectively. Average weight reduction was similar in both groups: -0.5 kg (≥75 years) and -0.6 kg (<75 years).

CONCLUSION

In both the older and younger age groups, the addition of once-daily insulin detemir to existing OAD regimens was effective and safe. In older patients, an improvement in HbA(1c) of 1.2 % was not associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia or weight gain.

Evaluation of type 2 diabetes mellitus medication management and control in older adults

OBJECTIVES

The primary aims of this study were to characterize glycemic control and pharmacologic management in older patients and to compare glycemic control and pharmacological management in patients 65 to 79 years of age ("young-old") with those 80 to 89 years of age ("old-old"). We hypothesized that patients 80 to 89 years of age would be prescribed fewer medications and would have higher A1c values compared with younger patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective medical record review.

SETTING

This study was conducted in outpatient clinics within a university hospital setting.

PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS

This study included 400 adults 65 to 89 years of age with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus and at least one A1c measurement over 12 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A1c measurements and diabetes mellitus medications were assessed in these patients.

RESULTS

The overall mean A1c was similar in the young-old compared with the old-old (7.1 ± 1.1% vs. 7.0 ± 1.1%; P = NS). There was no difference between groups for any of the A1c ranges studied. Fewer diabetes medications were prescribed in the old-old compared with the young-old (P = 0.003). In the young-old compared with the old-old, metformin (51.0% vs. 33.0%; P < 0.01), glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (6.7% vs. 0%; P < 0.01), insulin glargine/detemir (24.7% vs. 13.0%; P < 0.05), and short-acting insulin (15.0% vs. 7.0%; P < 0.05) were more frequently prescribed.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that glycemic control was similar between the young-old and old-old. However, the old-old required fewer diabetic medications for this same level of glycemic control.

Hypoglycaemia due to interaction of glimepiride with isoniazid in a patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Hypoglycaemia is a well-recognised untoward effect of sulfonylureas. We report a case of severe hypoglycaemia after isoniazid initiation in a type 2 diabetic patient. An oral glucose tolerance test revealed high serum insulin and C peptide, suggesting hyperinsulinaemia, and it was used to ascertain the relationship between insulin, glucose and C peptide levels. Insulin and C peptide elevation was attributed to the interaction between the two drugs. As a cytochrome inhibitor, isoniazid increased serum glimepiride concentration, resulting in hyperinsulinaemia. The diagnosis of occult insulinoma or nesidioblastosis was ruled out by CT and MRI, as we could not perform more sensitive, still invasive, diagnostic procedures. After isoniazid withdrawal, hypoglycaemia regressed and glimepiride was reinitiated. In conclusion, this case illustrates the need of caution when prescribing isoniazid in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving glimepiride to avoid hypoglycaemia.

Young and Elderly Type 2 Diabetic Patients Inhaling Insulin with the AERx® Insulin Diabetes Management System: A Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparison

The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety of inhaled insulin delivered by the AERx iDMS in young and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. Twenty-seven young (18-45 years, inclusive) and 28 elderly (>/= 65 years) type 2 diabetic patients were enrolled in this study. A single inhalation of 1.57 mg (45 IU, effect comparable to 6 s.c. units) of regular human insulin was administered to each patient on each of 2 dosing days, and blood samples were drawn up to 360 minutes postdosing to generate the PK/PD curves. AUC(0-360 min) and Cmax values of inhaled insulin were comparable between young and elderly subjects (p = 0.476 for AUC(0-360 min) and p = 0.414 for Cmax). However, the elderly group had significantly less glucose reduction, as indicated by plasma glucose AOC(0-360) (area over the curve) values (p = 0.011). The intrasubject variability of inhaled insulin using the AERx iDMS was similar for young and elderly subjects and was similar to what has previously been reported for soluble insulin administered subcutaneously. Inhaled insulin was well tolerated in these patients, and no changes in pulmonary function tests were observed. A single inhalation of insulin using the AERx iDMS demonstrated comparable insulin PK profiles between the elderly and young type 2 patients but less glucose reduction in the elderly. Based on these results, elderly diabetic patients may need to inhale more insulin than young patients to achieve similar glycemic control. Long-term clinical trials using the AERx device will be useful to study age-related differences.

Glucose and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: focus on combination therapy with colesevelam HCl

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is high among the elderly population. Treatment of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes presents challenges because of co-morbidities and the potential increase in the risk of adverse effects. Hyperlipidaemia is also common in the elderly population. Glucose-and lipid-lowering treatment in elderly patients should be individualized on the basis of the patient’s life expectancy, health status and cardiovascular risk factors, and evidence-based guideline recommendations. Because elderly patients often have impaired renal and hepatic function, careful considerations must be made when selecting appropriate glucose- and lipid-lowering therapy. There are a number of potential safety issues associated with various glucose- and lipid-lowering therapies that are relevant to elderly patients, including increased risk of heart failure exacerbations, weight loss, increased risk of hypoglycaemia, increased risk of myopathy, and contraindications of some agents in patients with hepatic or renal impairment. The bile acid sequestrant colesevelam HCl is unique compared with other glucose- and lipid-lowering therapies because it is the only product approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, as an adjunct to diet and exercise, to lower both glucose and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in adults with type 2 diabetes and primary hyperlipidaemia, respectively. Furthermore, colesevelam has been shown to have similar glucose- and lipid-lowering efficacy in patients aged <65 years and those aged ≥65 years. Colesevelam was not associated with weight gain, was associated with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia, and can be safely combined with a broad range of glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas and insulin) and lipid-lowering statins. Currently, colesevelam is available in tablet form and as a powder for oral suspension formulation; the latter may be of benefit to elderly patients with swallowing difficulties. As colesevelam has both glucose- and lipid-lowering effects, its use may reduce the drug burden in elderly patients receiving multiple agents for glucose and lipid lowering. Colesevelam may be a valuable treatment option as an add-on to existing glucose- and/or lipid-lowering therapy to help improve haemoglobin A_1c and to lower LDL-C levels in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes and primary hyperlipidaemia.

Efficacy and tolerability of sitagliptin monotherapy in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Type 2 diabetes in the elderly is an important and insufficiently studied public health problem. This study evaluated sitagliptin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥ 65 years.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study conducted at 52 sites in the United States. Patients were treated with once-daily sitagliptin (100 or 50 mg, depending on renal function) or placebo for 24 weeks. Key endpoints included change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), 2-hour post-meal glucose (2-h PMG) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at week 24, and average blood glucose on treatment days 3 and 7.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00305604.

RESULTS

Among randomized patients (N = 206), mean age was 72 years and mean baseline HbA(1c) was 7.8%. At week 24, HbA(1c) decreased by 0.7%, 2-h PMG by 61 mg/dL, and FPG by 27 mg/dL in sitagliptin-treated patients compared with placebo (all p < 0.001). On day 3 of treatment, mean average blood glucose was decreased from baseline by 20.4 mg/dL in sitagliptin-treated patients compared with placebo (p < 0.001). In subgroups defined by baseline HbA(1c) <8.0% (n = 132), ≥ 8.0% to <9.0% (n = 42), and ≥ 9.0% (n = 18), the placebo-adjusted reductions in HbA(1c) with sitagliptin treatment were 0.5%, 0.9%, and 1.6%, respectively. Patients in the sitagliptin and placebo groups had similar rates of adverse events overall (46.1% and 52.9%, respectively); serious adverse events were reported in 6.9% and 13.5%, respectively. No adverse events of hypoglycemia were reported. Potential study limitations include a relatively small number of patients with more severe hyperglycemia (HbA(1c) ≥ 9.0%) and the exclusion of patients with severe renal insufficiency.

CONCLUSION

In this study, sitagliptin treatment significantly and rapidly improved glycemic measures and was well tolerated in patients aged ≥ 65 years with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of saxagliptin (5 mg once-daily) in older patients (≥65 years of age) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this retrospective subgroup analysis, data from five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, 24-week, phase 3 trials were included. The primary studies evaluated saxagliptin 5 mg once-daily (monotherapy or add-on) in patients aged 18-77 years with HbA(1c) ≥7.0% (four studies) or ≥7.5% (add-on to glyburide study) versus placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy endpoint of each study included in this pooled analysis was HbA(1c) change from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

In the five-study pooled population, 279 (16.6%) patients were at least 65 years old; 142 received saxagliptin 5 mg once-daily and 137 received placebo. Treatment groups were well-balanced for baseline characteristics within each study. In older patients, the HbA(1c) adjusted mean change from a baseline of 8.1% was -0.73 ± 0.16% (mean ± SEM) with saxagliptin compared with -0.17 ± 0.14% for placebo from a baseline of 8.0%. Adverse event rates were similar with saxagliptin 5 mg once-daily compared with placebo in older patients.

CONCLUSION

The pooled subgroup analysis of saxagliptin 5 mg once-daily monotherapy and add-on therapy trials demonstrated clinically relevant and significant efficacy for reducing HbA(1c) in older (≥65 years) patients. Saxagliptin was well-tolerated in older patients with a low incidence of hypoglycemia and no weight gain.

Clinical experience with vildagliptin in the management of type 2 diabetes in a patient population ≥75 years: a pooled analysis from a database of clinical trials

AIM

To report the experience with vildagliptin in a patient population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) ≥75 years.

METHODS

Efficacy data from seven monotherapy and three add-on therapy to metformin studies, respectively, of ≥24 weeks duration were pooled; effects of 24 weeks of treatment with vildagliptin (50 mg bid) in patients ≥75 years were assessed in these two pooled datasets. Safety data were pooled from 38 studies of ≥12 to ≥104 weeks duration; adverse events (AEs) profiles of vildagliptin (50 mg bid) were evaluated relative to a pool of comparators; 301 patients ≥75 years were analysed. Data in patients <75 years are provided as a reference.

RESULTS

Mean age of the elderly population was 77 years. Changes in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) with vildagliptin in the patient group ≥75 years were -0.9% from a baseline of 8.3% in monotherapy (p < 0.0001) and -1.1% from a baseline of 8.5% in add-on therapy to metformin (p = 0.0004), and these reductions were similar to those seen in the younger patients. The corresponding weight changes in the elderly patients were -0.9 kg (p = 0.0277) and -0.2 kg [not significant (NS)], respectively, and no confirmed hypoglycaemic events, including no severe events, were reported. AEs, drug-related AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths were reported with a lower frequency in older patients receiving vildagliptin than comparators [133.9 vs. 200.6, 14.5 vs. 21.8, 8.8 vs. 16.5 and 0.0 vs. 1.7 events per 100 subject year exposure (SYE), respectively], and the incidence of discontinuations due to AEs was similar in the two groups (7.2 vs. 7.5 events per 100 SYE, respectively). The safety profile of vildagliptin was overall similar in younger and older patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin was effective and well-tolerated in type 2 diabetic patients ≥75 years (mean age 77 years).

Intentional and unintentional non-adherence in community dwelling people with type 2 diabetes: the effect of varying numbers of medicines

People with type 2 diabetes are often prescribed multi-medicines which can be difficult to manage. Non-adherence to medicines can be intentional (e.g. active decision) or unintentional (e.g. forgetting). The objective of this study was to measure intentional and unintentional non-adherence to differing numbers of medicines prescribed in type 2 diabetes. A cross-sectional survey using the Morisky medication adherence scale (with intentional and unintentional non-adherence subscales) was completed by 480 people prescribed oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), antihypertensive agents and statins. A within-subject analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that intentional non-adherence did not vary between OADs, anti-hypertensives and statins. Intentional non-adherence to statins significantly increased when the number of medicines prescribed was included as a between-subjects variable (p<0.05). Another within-subject ANOVA on unintentional non-adherence found a significant difference between OADs, anti-hypertensives and statins; unintentional non-adherence to OADs was significantly higher (p<0.05). When the number of medicines was added as a between-subject variable unintentional non-adherence was associated with higher numbers of medicines. This study shows the difference between intentional and unintentional non-adherence behaviours, and the effect that varying numbers of medicines can have on these behaviours.

Pharmacologic management of the older patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Pharmacologic options for the treatment of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are the same as in younger adults; however, treatment considerations differ in the elderly due to changes in renal and hepatic function, life expectancy, and various other clinical and practical considerations.

OBJECTIVE

This article discusses geriatric considerations in the pharmacologic management of T2DM and reviews the potential clinical advantages and disadvantages of pharmacologic agents currently available for the treatment of T2DM, including oral and injectable medications.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE was conducted for articles published in English between January 1966 and September 2009 using the terms type 2 diabetes mellitus, elderly, geriatric, treatment, insulin, metformin, sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, meglitinide, DPP-4 inhibitor, colesevelam, exenatide, and pramlintide. Meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatment, and evidence-based reviews and/or expert opinions regarding the treatment of T2DM in the elderly were selected for review.

RESULTS

In overweight patients, metformin has been associated with reductions in risk for all-cause mortality and stroke compared with insulin and sulfonylureas. Older patients who are frail, anorexic, or underweight and those with congestive heart failure (CHF), renal or hepatic insufficiency, or dehydration may not be appropriate candidates for metformin therapy. The substantial risk of hypoglycemia with insulin secretagogues is increased by 36% in the elderly compared with younger adults; however, this risk is counterbalanced by the extensive clinical experience with these agents in the geriatric population. Thiazolidinediones should generally be avoided in patients with CHF and are absolutely contraindicated in patients with class II-IV heart failure. They have been associated with peripheral edema, as well as with decreases in bone mineral density in women. There is limited information on the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in the elderly, although dose adjustment is required in patients with renal compromise. In practice, substantial gastrointestinal adverse effects limit the use of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors in older patients. Colesevelam is associated with numerous drug interactions and can cause new or worsening constipation. There are limited data on the use of exenatide in the elderly. It may be beneficial in older patients with limited mobility who could benefit from weight loss, whereas it may not be a good option for frail, underweight adults. Use of exenatide is not recommended in patients with a creatinine clearance <30 mL/min. Given the increased monitoring required to avoid hypoglycemic events with pramlintide, this agent should be used with caution in older adults, particularly the frail elderly. Most patients with T2DM eventually require insulin; however, due to the risk of hypoglycemia and related morbidity, careful use of insulin is warranted in the geriatric population.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is a scarcity of data regarding the use of pharmacologic agents in older adults with T2DM, and clinical guidance is largely based on data obtained from younger populations. The selection of appropriate drug regimens for these patients remains challenging.

Effect of glimepiride and nateglinide on serum insulin and glucose concentration in healthy cats

Glimepiride and nateglinide are two common oral hypoglycemic agents currently being used with humans suffering from Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Neither drug has been tested with cats thus far and it is currently unknown whether either of these drugs exert any effect in cats or not. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of glimepiride and nateglinide on glucose and insulin responses in healthy control cats, in order to determine their potential use in diabetic cats. The intravenous glucose tolerance tests was carried out since it is an excellent test for evaluating pancreatic beta-cell function for insulin secretion. Alterations in the insulin secretion pattern can be perceived as the earliest sign of beta-cell dysfunction in many species, including cats. Nateglinide demonstrated a quick action/short duration type effect with serum glucose nadiring and insulin response peaking at 60 and 20 minutes, respectively. Alternatively, glimepiride is medium-to-long acting with serum glucose nadiring and insulin response peaking at 180 minutes and 60 minutes, respectively. Nateglinide's potency was evident allowing it to induce a 1.5-2 higher preliminary insulin peak (3.7 +/- 1.1 pg/ml) than glimepiride's (2.5 +/- 0.1 pg/ml), albeit only for a short period of time. Because glimepiride and nateglinide have a shared mode of action, no significant differences in overall glucose AUC(0-360 min) (24,435 +/- 2,940 versus 24,782 +/- 2,354 mg min/dl) and insulin AUC(0-360 min) (410 +/- 192 versus 460 +/- 159) in healthy control cats were observed. These findings may provide useful information when choosing a hypoglycemic drug suited for the treatment of diabetic cats depending on the degree of diabetes mellitus the cat is suffering from.

Comparison of vildagliptin and metformin monotherapy in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, double-blind, randomized trial

AIMS

The study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, and metformin in drug-naïve elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of vildagliptin vs. metformin in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, multicentre, active-controlled, parallel-group study of 24-week treatment with vildagliptin (100 mg daily, n=169) or metformin (titrated to 1500 mg daily, n=166) in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes aged>or=65 years (baseline HbA1c 7-9%).

RESULTS

Participants had a mean age of 71 years, known duration of diabetes of 3 years and mean baseline HbA1c of 7.7%. At end-point, vildagliptin was as effective as metformin, improving HbA1c by -0.64+/-0.07% and -0.75+/-0.07%, respectively, meeting the predefined statistical criterion for non-inferiority (upper limit of 95% confidence interval for between-treatment difference<or=0.3%). Body weight changes were -0.45+/-0.20 kg in vildagliptin-treated patients (p=0.02) and -1.25+/-0.19 kg in metformin-treated patients (p<0.001; p=0.004 vs. vildagliptin). The proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event (AE) was 44.3 vs. 50.3% in patients receiving vildagliptin and metformin respectively. Gastrointestinal (GI) AEs were significantly more frequent with metformin (24.8%) than with vildagliptin (15.0%, p=0.028), mainly driven by a 4.4-fold higher incidence of diarrhoea. A low incidence of hypoglycaemia was observed in both treatment groups (0% with vildagliptin and 1.2% with metformin).

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, demonstrating similar improvement in glycaemic control as metformin, with superior GI tolerability.

Use of serum c-peptide level to simplify diabetes treatment regimens in older adults

BACKGROUND

Diabetes management in older adults is challenging. Poor glycemic control and high risk of hypoglycemia are common in older patients on a complicated insulin regimen. Newer oral hypoglycemic agents have provided an opportunity to simplify regimens in patients with type-2 diabetes on insulin. Serum c-peptide is a test to assess endogenous production of insulin. We analyze the use of serum c-peptide level in simplifying diabetes regimen by decreasing or stopping insulin injection and adding oral hypoglycemic agents in older adults.

METHODS

One hundred patients aged over 65 years with either poor glycemic control or difficulty coping with insulin regimen seen at a geriatric diabetes clinic were analyzed for this study. The data on serum c-peptide levels and A1c, along with demographic information, were obtained from medical charts.

RESULTS

Sixty-five of 100 patients (aged 79+/-14 years, duration of diabetes 21+/-13 years) had detectable serum c-peptide levels. Forty-six of 65 patients were available for simplification of regimen. Eleven of 46 patients had other co-morbidities preventing use of oral hypoglycemic agents. In 35/65 patients, simplification was completed successfully. Nineteen of 35 patients were converted to all-oral regimens (off insulin), while 16/35 had simplification of regimen by addition of oral hypoglycemic agents and lowering the number of insulin injections from an average of 2.7 to 1.5 injections/day (P=.001). Glycemic control improved significantly in patients with a simplified regimen (8.0%+/-1.5% vs 7.4%+/-1.5%; P<.002), and patients reported fewer hypoglycemia episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Serum c-peptide level can be used to simplify insulin regimen in older adults with diabetes.

New approaches to treating type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly: role of incretin therapies

The increasing proportion of elderly persons in the global population, and the implications of this trend in terms of increasing rates of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, continue to be a cause for concern for clinicians and healthcare policy makers. The diagnosis and treatment of type 2 diabetes in the elderly is challenging, as age-related changes alter the clinical presentation of diabetic symptoms. Once type 2 diabetes is diagnosed, the principles of its management are similar to those in younger patients, but with special considerations linked to the increased prevalence of co-morbidities and relative inability to tolerate the adverse effects of medication and hypoglycaemia. In addition, there are many underappreciated factors complicating diabetes care in the elderly, including cognitive disorders, physical disability and geriatric syndromes, such as frailty, urinary incontinence and pain. Available oral antihyperglycaemic drugs include insulin secretagogues (meglitinides and sulfonylureas), biguanides (metformin), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and thiazolidinediones. Unfortunately, as type 2 diabetes progresses in older persons, polypharmacy intensification is required to achieve adequate glycaemic control with the attendant increased risk of adverse effects as a result of age-related changes in drug metabolism. The recent introduction of the incretins, a group of intestinal peptides that enhance insulin secretion after ingestion of food, as novel oral antihyperglycaemic treatments may prove significant in older persons. The two main categories of incretin therapy currently available are: glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues and inhibitors of GLP-1 degrading enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4). The present review discusses the effect of aging on metabolic control in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, the current treatments used to treat this population and some of the more recent advances in the field of geriatric type 2 diabetes. In particular, we highlight the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 and DPP-4 inhibitors, administered as monotherapy or in combination with other oral antihyperglycaemic agents, especially when the relevant clinical trials included older persons. There is strong evidence that use of incretin therapy, in particular, the DPP-4 inhibitors, could offer significant advantages in older persons. Clinical evidence suggests that the DPP-4 inhibitors vildagliptin and sitagliptin are particularly suitable for frail and debilitated elderly patients because of their excellent tolerability profiles. Importantly, these agents lack the gastrointestinal effects seen with metformin and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors taken alone, and have a low risk of the hypoglycaemic events commonly seen with agents that directly lower blood glucose levels.

Insulin Devices

Purpose

The purpose of this article was to identify and address barriers to initiating insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Results

Insulin pen devices address many of the mechanical barriers associated with a syringe and vial. In addition, pen devices are increasingly being improved, offering long-term pen users benefits over earlier pen users. These devices can be tailored to address the specific needs of different patient populations, such as elderly patients or those with visual or manual dexterity disabilities. Although insulin devices offer benefits over the syringe and vial, features desirable in the ideal pen have not been established.

Conclusions

Data suggest that currently available insulin pens possess various features that make them suitable for particular patients. Individual needs of each patient should be considered before an insulin pen device is prescribed.

United States patient preference and usability for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus other disposable pens

The uptake of insulin pen use has been slow in the United States, despite their advantages over the vial/ syringe. We present results of a United States subset of 150 patients with type 1/type 2 diabetes, who were enrolled in an open-label study, that assessed usability, pen features, and patient preferences for four prefilled insulin pens: SoloSTAR, FlexPen, Lilly disposable pen, and a prototype, Pen X. Overall, the SoloSTAR and FlexPen were more user-friendly; 95 and 88% of patients, respectively, completed the steps correctly (without safety/attach-needle step-deemed independent of device) versus the Lilly disposable pen (60%) and Pen X (61%; all p < 0.05). The SoloSTAR was rated highest most frequently for pen feature comparisons. Results suggest that the SoloSTAR and FlexPen could potentially facilitate insulin use in the United States.

Effects of vildagliptin on glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with a sulphonylurea

AIM

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin vs. placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who are inadequately controlled [haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) 7.5 to 11%] with prior sulphonylurea (SU) monotherapy.

METHODS

This 24-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin (50 mg given once or twice daily) vs. placebo added to glimepiride (4 mg once daily) in 515 patients with T2DM. Adjusted mean changes from baseline to end-point (AMDelta) in HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose, fasting lipids and body weight were compared by analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

The between-group difference (vildagliptin - placebo) in AMDelta HbA(1c) was -0.6 +/- 0.1% in patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg daily and -0.7 +/- 0.1% in those receiving 100 mg daily (p < 0.001 vs. placebo for both). Greater efficacy was seen in patients > or =65 years of age (-0.7 +/- 0.1% and -0.8 +/- 0.2% for 50 and 100 mg daily respectively) and in patients with baseline HbA(1c) > 9% (Delta = -1.0 +/- 0.2% and -0.9 +/- 0.2% for 50 and 100 mg daily respectively). Relative to placebo, patients receiving vildagliptin also had improvements in beta-cell function and postprandial glucose, with small changes in fasting lipids and body weight. The incidences of adverse events (AEs) (67.1, 66.3 and 64.2%) and serious AEs (2.9, 2.4 and 5.1%) were similar in patients receiving 50 mg vildagliptin, 100 mg vildagliptin or placebo respectively. The incidence of hypoglycaemic events was low but slightly higher in the group receiving vildagliptin 100 mg (3.6%) than in the group receiving vildagliptin 50 mg (1.2%) or placebo (0.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with prior SU monotherapy, addition of vildagliptin (50 or 100 mg daily) to glimepiride (4 mg once daily) improves glycaemic control and is well tolerated. Addition of vildagliptin 50 mg daily to SU monotherapy may be a particularly attractive therapy in elderly patients.

Insulin therapy in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: the role of insulin glargine

Within the USA, between 1980 and 2005, the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes has increased in all age groups, with the age group 65-74 years having the highest prevalence. The treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in elderly people is made more difficult than in their younger counterparts, primarily owing to the impact of co-morbidities, complications and hypoglycaemia as well as technical difficulties with insulin injections. Accordingly, the treatment approach for elderly patients with T2DM may need to be modified to accommodate co-morbidities and illnesses associated with ageing. Risks associated with insulin therapy, particularly hypoglycaemia, have traditionally limited the use of insulin in this patient population. Insulin glargine is associated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, for example, and could thus provide a treatment of choice for healthcare providers when considering the increasing prevalence of diabetes in the elderly population. A regimen based on insulin glargine plus oral agents provides clinicians with a tool to help meet therapeutic targets in this population without increasing risk of hypoglycaemia.

Management of type 2 diabetes in treatment-naive elderly patients: benefits and risks of vildagliptin monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Efficacy data from five double-blind, randomized, placebo- or active-controlled trials of >or=24 weeks' duration were pooled. Effects of 24-week vildagliptin monotherapy (100 mg daily) were compared in younger (<65 years, n = 1,231) and older (>or=65 years, n = 238) patients. Safety data from eight controlled clinical trials of >or=12-weeks' duration were pooled; adverse event profiles in younger (n = 1,890) and older (n = 374) patients were compared.

RESULTS

Mean baseline A1C and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were significantly lower in older (70 years: 8.3 +/- 0.1% and 9.6 +/- 0.1 mmol/l, respectively) than in younger (50 years: 8.7 +/- 0.0% and 10.5 +/- 0.1 mmol/l, respectively) patients. Despite this, the adjusted mean change from baseline (AMDelta) in A1C was -1.2 +/- 0.1% in older and -1.0 +/- 0.0% in younger vildagliptin-treated patients (P = 0.092), and the AMDelta in FPG was significantly larger in older (-1.5 +/- 0.2 mmol/l) than in younger (-1.1 +/- 0.1 mmol/l, P = 0.035) patients. Body weight was significantly lower at baseline in older (83.4 +/- 1.0 kg) than in younger (92.0 +/- 0.6 kg) patients. Weight decreased significantly in the older subgroup (AMDelta -0.9 +/- 0.3 kg, P = 0.007), whereas smaller, nonsignificant decreases occurred in younger patients (AMDelta -0.2 +/- 0.1 kg). Adverse event rates were slightly higher in older than in younger subgroups but were lower among older, vildagliptin-treated subjects (63.6%) than in the pooled active comparator group (68.1%). Vildagliptin treatment did not increase adverse events among older patients with mild renal impairment (62.0%). Hypoglycemia was rare (0.8%) in the elderly patients, and no severe events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin monotherapy was effective and well tolerated in treatment-naive elderly patients.

Inhaled insulin using AERx insulin Diabetes Management System (AERx iDMS)

Diabetes is a chronic, debilitating disease that afflicts millions of people worldwide and poor glycemic control in this disease leads to numerous microvascular and macrovascular complications. There is growing evidence that tight glycemic control prevents the development, and delays the progression, of microvascular complications and possibly macrovascular disease in patients with diabetes. All patients with Type 1 diabetes and many patients with Type 2 diabetes require intensive insulin therapy to achieve optimal glucose control. Although subcutaneous insulin therapy is the mainstay of insulin therapy, there are patients who fear needles and often refuse to start insulin therapy despite suboptimal glucose control. In these patients, inhaled insulin represents a non-invasive, painless method to administer intensive insulin treatment. The Novo Nordisk AS AERx iDMS (insulin Diabetes Management System) for inhaled insulin is a novel device that administers an aerosol of liquid insulin into the deep lung with dose adjustments as precise as one subcutaneous unit. Initial pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies demonstrate that the device delivers liquid insulin in a clear dose-response manner and with a rapid onset of action similar to the fast-acting analog insulins. At present, large, long-term Phase III studies are in progress to document not only the efficacy, but also the safety and feasibility of this device in the treatment of patients with diabetes.