Geriatric Syndromes in Older Adults with Diabetes

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

Gaps Remain for Achieving HbA1c Targets for People with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes Using Insulin: Results from NHANES 2009-2020

INTRODUCTION

Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is an important measure to assess glycemic control and predict diabetes complications. However, there is limited information on trends in HbA1c among people with diabetes (PwDs) who use insulin. The aim of this study was to describe trends in HbA1c among PwDs who use insulin by diabetes type and insulin regimen.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2009-2020). PwDs were classified into three cohorts: type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), type 2 diabetes mellitus using mealtime insulin (T2DM-MTI), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using basal-only insulin (T2DM basal-only). Trends in HbA1c over time were assessed using regression analysis after adjusting for age, gender, and race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c values aggregated over 2009-2020 were 8.0% (T1DM), 8.6% (T2DM-MTI), and 8.6% (T2DM basal-only). The American Diabetes Association-recommended target of HbA1c of < 7% was achieved by 25.2% of people in the T1DM and T2DM-MTI groups each and by 12.3% of people in the T2DM basal-only group. Over time, an upward trend was observed in the percentage of people achieving HbA1c < 7% in the T2DM basal-only group. The percentage of PwDs achieving individualized HbA1c targets was 27.0%, 12.4%, and 16.1% for the T1DM, T2DM-MTI, and T2DM basal-only groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study using NHANES data suggests that approximately 25% of PwDs achieve glycemic targets. This study highlights the need for improved therapies to better manage glycemic targets in PwDs.

Factors affecting achievement of glycemic targets among type 2 diabetes patients in South Asia: Analysis of the CARRS trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the predictors of achieving and maintaining guideline-recommended glycemic control in people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia (CARRS) Trial (n = 1146), to identify groups that achieved guideline-recommended glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%) and those that remained persistently poorly controlled (HbA1c > 9%) over a median of 28 months of follow-up. We used generalized estimation equations (GEE) analysis for each outcome i.e. achieving guideline-recommended control and persistently poorly controlled and constructed four regression models (demographics, disease-related, self-care, and other risk factors) separately to identify predictors of HbA1c < 7% and HbA1c > 9% at the end of the trial, adjusting for trial group assignment and site.

RESULTS

In the final multivariate model, adherence to prescribed medications (RR: 1.46, 95%CI: 1.09, 1.95), adherence to diet plans (RR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.43, 2.23) and middle-aged: 50-64 years (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.02-1.71) were associated with achieving guideline-recommended control (HbA1c < 7%). Presence of microvascular complications (RR: 0.70; 95%CI: 0.53-0.92) reduced the probability of achieving guideline-recommended glycemic control (HbA1c 7%). Further, longer duration of diabetes (>15 years), RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.72, hyperlipidemia, RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.34 and younger age group (35-49 years vs. >64 years: RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.47-0.79) were associated with persistently poor glycemic control (HbA1c > 9%).

CONCLUSION

To achieve and maintain guideline-recommended glycemic control, care delivery models must put additional emphasis and effort on patients with longer disease duration, younger people and those having microvascular complications and hyperlipidemia.

Evolution of Insulin Delivery Devices: From Syringes, Pens, and Pumps to DIY Artificial Pancreas

The year 2021 will mark 100 years since the discovery of insulin. Insulin, the first medication to be discovered for diabetes, is still the safest and most potent glucose-lowering therapy. The major challenge of insulin despite its efficacy has been the occurrence of hypoglycemia, which has resulted in sub-optimal dosages being prescribed in the vast majority of patients. Popular devices used for insulin administration are syringes, pens, and pumps. An artificial pancreas (AP) with a closed-loop delivery system with > 95% time in range is believed to soon become a reality. The development of closed-loop delivery systems has gained momentum with recent advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and computer algorithms. This review discusses the evolution of syringes, disposable, durable pens and connected pens, needles, tethered and patch insulin pumps, bionic pancreas, alternate controller-enabled infusion (ACE) pumps, and do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIY-APS).

Achieving postprandial glucose control with lixisenatide improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin: a post-hoc analysis of pooled data

Background

To examine the impact on glycemic control of achieving postprandial glucose (PPG) target with lixisenatide, a once-daily glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved in the US, in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin, an agent that primarily targets fasting plasma glucose.

Methods

A post hoc pooled analysis was conducted using clinical trial data extracted from the intent-to-treat subpopulation of patients with T2D who participated in the 24-week, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-arm parallel-group, multicenter GetGoal-L (NCT00715624), GetGoal-Duo 1 (NCT00975286) and GetGoal-L Asia trials (NCT00866658).

Results

Data from 587 lixisenatide-treated patients and 484 placebo-treated patients were included. Patients on lixisenatide were more likely to achieve a PPG target of < 10 mmol/L (< 180 mg/dL) than placebo-treated patients (P < 0.001), regardless of baseline fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels. More importantly, those who reached the PPG target experienced a significantly greater reduction in mean HbA1c, were more likely to achieve HbA1c target of < 53 mmol/mol (< 7.0%), and experienced weight loss. Those outcomes were achieved with no significant differences in the risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia compared with placebo.

Conclusion

Compared with placebo, addition of lixisenatide to basal insulin improved HbA1c and reduced PPG, without increasing hypoglycemia risk. These findings highlight the importance of PPG control in the management of T2D, and provide evidence that adding an agent to basal insulin therapy that also impacts PPG has therapeutic value for patients who are not meeting glycemic targets.

Trial registration

NCT00715624. Registered 15 July 2008, NCT00975286. Registered 11 September 2009, NCT00866658. Registered 20 March 2009.

Exploring how patients understand and assess their diabetes control

BACKGROUND

Poor understanding of diabetes management targets is associated with worse disease outcomes. Patients may use different information than providers to assess their diabetes control. In this study, we identify the information patients use to gauge their current level of diabetes control and explore patient-perceived barriers to understanding the hemoglobin A1c value (HbA1c).

METHODS

Adults who self-reported a diagnosis of diabetes were recruited from outpatient, academically-affiliated, Internal Medicine clinics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants and collected data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 25 participants was 56.8 years. HbA1c was one of several types of information participants used to assess diabetes control. Other information included perceived self-efficacy and adherence to self-care, the type and amount of medications taken, the presence or absence of symptoms attributed to diabetes, and feedback from self-monitoring of blood glucose. Most participants reported familiarity with the HbA1c (22 of 25), though understanding of the value's meaning varied significantly. Inadequate diabetes education and challenges with patient-provider communication were cited as common barriers to understanding the HbA1c.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to the HbA1c, several categories of information influenced participants' assessments of their diabetes control. Increased provider awareness of the factors that influence patients' perceptions of diabetes control can inform effective, patient-centered approaches for communicating vital diabetes-related information, facilitating behavior change towards improved patient outcomes.

Are patients on basal insulin attaining glycemic targets? Characteristics and goal achievement of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with basal insulin and physician-perceived barriers to achieving glycemic targets

AIMS

To investigate treatment patterns and achievement of glycemic targets in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with basal insulin in a real-world setting, and to determine physicians' beliefs and practices regarding these patients.

METHODS

This study had two components; a retrospective analysis using a US claims database of patient and treatment data, and a survey of physicians' beliefs and practices.

RESULTS

A total of 39,074 patients treated with basal insulin were included in this analysis. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c<7.0% (53mmol/mol) was similar in ongoing basal insulin users at baseline (26%) and at 3months follow-up (27%). The number of new initiators achieving HbA1c<7.0% (53mmol/mol) increased from baseline (11%) to 3months (27%). In the physician survey component, the majority of physicians indicated they would continue to increase basal insulin dose as long as was needed to reach HbA1c/fasting blood glucose goals (85% of physicians treating 'not on-goal' patients, 78% of physicians treating 'on-goal' patients). Physician-perceived barriers to insulin intensification included patient's lifestyle, non-adherence, and concerns about out-of-pocket costs.

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of patients on insulin-based therapy fail to reach glycemic goals. More education of clinicians may improve insulin intensification rates and increase the proportion of patients reaching glycemic targets.

Glycemic targets: what is the evidence?

Hyperglycemia is the unifying metabolic abnormality for all forms of diabetes mellitus, forming the basis for its diagnosis and treatment. The strong epidemiologic associations between hyperglycemia and the complications of diabetes have given rise to the glucose hypothesis-that the complications of diabetes are caused by hyperglycemia and that they can be prevented by normalizing glucose levels. Herein the authors review the epidemiologic relationships between hyperglycemia and the complications of diabetes, the major trials of glucose lowering, and the extent to which the glucose hypothesis is supported by these studies and how this information can be translated into clinical practice.