Approaches to Risk Assessment Among Older Patients With Diabetes

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.

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

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

Diabetes Life Expectancy Prediction Model Inputs and Results From Patient Surveys Compared With Electronic Health Record Abstraction: Survey Study

Background

Prediction models are being increasingly used in clinical practice, with some requiring patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The optimal approach to collecting the needed inputs is unknown.

Objective

Our objective was to compare mortality prediction model inputs and scores based on electronic health record (EHR) abstraction versus patient survey.

Methods

Older patients aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes at an urban primary care practice in Chicago were recruited to participate in a care management trial. All participants completed a survey via an electronic portal that included items on the presence of comorbid conditions and functional status, which are needed to complete a mortality prediction model. We compared the individual data inputs and the overall model performance based on the data gathered from the survey compared to the chart review.

Results

For individual data inputs, we found the largest differences in questions regarding functional status such as pushing/pulling, where 41.4% (31/75) of participants reported difficulties that were not captured in the chart with smaller differences for comorbid conditions. For the overall mortality score, we saw nonsignificant differences (P=.82) when comparing survey and chart-abstracted data. When allocating participants to life expectancy subgroups (<5 years, 5-10 years, >10 years), differences in survey and chart review data resulted in 20% having different subgroup assignments and, therefore, discordant glucose control recommendations.

Conclusions

In this small exploratory study, we found that, despite differences in data inputs regarding functional status, the overall performance of a mortality prediction model was similar when using survey and chart-abstracted data. Larger studies comparing patient survey and chart data are needed to assess whether these findings are reproduceable and clinically important.

Expected Health Benefits of SGLT-2 Inhibitors and GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Older Adults

Background. Older and sicker adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) were underrepresented in randomized trials of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor-agonist (GLP1RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2I), and thus, health benefits are uncertain in this population. Objective. To assess the impact of age, health status, and life expectancy in older adults with T2D on health benefits of GLP1RA and SGLT2I. Design. We used the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) model to simulate lifetime health outcomes. We calibrated the UKPDS model to improve mortality prediction in older adults using a common geriatric prognostic index. Participants. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2018 participants 65 y and older with T2D, eligible for GLP1RA or SGLT2I according to American Diabetes Association guidelines. Interventions. GLP1RA or SGLT2I use versus no additional medication. Main Measures. Lifetime complications and weighted life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) across overall treatment arms and life expectancies. Key Results. The overall older adult population was predicted to experience significant health benefits from GLP1RA (+0.29 LY [95% confidence interval: 0.27, 0.31], +0.15 QALYs [0.14, 0.16]) and SGLT2I (+0.26 LY [0.24, 0.28], +0.13 QALYs [0.12, 0.14]) as compared with no added medication. However, expected benefits declined in subgroups with shorter life expectancies. Participants with <4 y of life expectancy had minimal gains of <0.05 LY and <0.03 QALYs from added medication. Accounting for injection-related disutility, GLP1RA use reduced QALYs (-0.03 QALYs [-0.04, -0.02]). Conclusions. While GLP1RA and SGLT2I have substantial health benefits for many older adults with type 2 diabetes, benefits are not clinically significant in patients with <4 y of life expectancy. Life expectancy and patient preferences are important considerations when prescribing newer diabetes medications.

Highlights

On average, older adults benefit significantly from SGLT2I and GLP1RA use. However, the benefits of these drugs are not clinically significant among older patients with life expectancy less than 4 y.There is potential harm in injectable GLP1RA use in the oldest categories of adults with type 2 diabetes.Heterogeneity in life expectancy and patient preferences for injectable versus oral medications are important to consider when prescribing newer diabetes medications.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A Qualitative Study of Perspectives of Older Adults on Deintensifying Diabetes Medications

BACKGROUND

While many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications.

DESIGN

This qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty.

APPROACH

Interviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous.

KEY RESULTS

Participants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification.

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

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

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

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

Reexamining the Classification of Older Adults With Diabetes by Comorbidities and Exploring Relationships With Frailty, Disability, and 5-year Mortality

BACKGROUND

Limited research has been conducted to risk stratify older adults with diabetes. Our objective was to reexamine the 2005-2006 classification systems in participants who are now 5 years older.

METHODS

We examined a subsample of 884 community-residing older adults with the diagnosis of diabetes from the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project. The primary objective was to utilize a latent class analysis (LCA) to fit a model to 11 comorbidities, comparing the 2010-2011 LCA model to that of 2005-2006. The secondary objective was to evaluate the association of the identified classes with frailty, disability, and 5-year mortality.

RESULTS

Both 2005-2006 LCA and the 2010-2011 LCA model fit 3 similar comorbidity profiles: Class 1 with the lowest rates of nearly all comorbidities, Class 2 had highest rates of obesity, hypertension, arthritis, and incontinence, and Class 3 had the higher rates of myocardial infarctions, congestive heart failure, and stroke. When compared to the healthier Class 1 (class probability = 0.67), participants with a comorbidity profile with more prevalent cardiovascular conditions (Class 3; 0.09) were at higher risk of frailty and mortality, but not disability; whereas participants with a comorbidity profile with more prevalent geriatric syndrome conditions (Class 2; 0.24) were at higher risk of frailty and disability, but not mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

We reconfirmed 3 latent classes with distinct comorbidity profiles among older adults with diabetes. However, the complex relationships between comorbidity classes with frailty, disability, and mortality will likely require revision of the current rationale for stratified goal setting and treatment selection.

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

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

One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial

Objective

This randomized and clinical trial aimed to evaluate the performance of a new restorative Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of patients with systemic diseases compared with a posterior resin composite after 12 months.

Methodology

134 restorations were placed at 30 patients presenting systemic diseases by a single clinician. NCCLs were allocated to two groups according to restorative system used: a conventional restorative GIC [Fuji Bulk (GC, Tokyo Japan) (FB)] and a posterior resin composite [G-ænial Posterior (GC, Tokyo Japan) (GP)] used with a universal adhesive using etch&rinse mode. All restorative procedures were conducted according to manufacturer’s instructions. Restorations were scored regarding retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after 1 week (baseline), 6, and 12 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests. Cochran Q and Mc Nemar’s tests were used to detect differences over time.

Results

After 12 months, recall rate was 93% and the rates of cumulative retention failure for FB and GP were 4.9% and 1.6% respectively. Both groups presented similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (FB 86.2%, GP 95.5%) and marginal discoloration (FB 93.8%, GP 97%) at 6-month recall, but FB restorations showed higher bravo scores than GP restorations for marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration after 12 months (p<0.05). Regarding surface texture, 2 FB restorations (3.1%) were scored as bravo after 6 months. All restorations were scored as alpha for secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity after 12 months.

Conclusion

Although the posterior resin composite demonstrated clinically higher alpha scores than the conventional GIC for marginal adaptation and discoloration, both materials successfully restored NCCLs at patients with systematic disease after a year.

Clinical relevance

Due to its acceptable clinical results, the tested conventional restorative GIC can be used for the restoration of NCCLs of patients with systemic diseases.

Improving the American Diabetes Association Framework for individualizing treatment in older adults: evaluating life expectancy

INTRODUCTION

For older adults with type 2 diabetes, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Framework uses comorbidities and functional status to categorize patients by estimated life expectancy to guide individualization of glycemic treatment. We evaluated whether modifying the ADA Framework by removing three comorbidities and incorporating age could improve life expectancy stratification and better identify patients likely to benefit from intensive treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We examined 3166 Health and Retirement Study participants aged ≥65 with diabetes from 1998 to 2004, using a prospective cohort design with mortality follow-up through 2016. We classified participants into one of three ADA Framework categories: Healthy, Intermediate Health, and Poor Health. We created modified categories by excluding comorbidities weakly associated with mortality (hypertension, arthritis, and incontinence). Using Gompertz regression, we estimated life expectancy across age strata for both original and modified ADA Framework categories.

RESULTS

The original ADA Framework classified 34% as Healthy (likely to benefit from intensive treatment), 50% as Intermediate Health, and 16% as Poor Health (unlikely to benefit from intensive treatment). Our comorbidity modification reclassified 20% of participants from Intermediate Health to Healthy. Using the modified ADA Framework, median life expectancy of the Healthy varied greatly by age (aged 65-69: 16.3 years; aged ≥80: 7.6 years), indicating differing likelihood of benefit. Additionally, age ≥80 made extended life expectancy unlikely (median life expectancy for Healthy 7.6 years, Intermediate Health 5.9 years, Poor Health 2.5 years), suggesting adults ≥80 are unlikely to benefit from intensive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Modifying the ADA Framework by incorporating age and focusing on comorbidities associated with mortality improved life expectancy stratification, resulting in different treatment recommendations for many older adults.

Challenges and Strategies for Inpatient Diabetes Management in Older Adults

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

Clinical and Public Health Implications of 2019 Endocrine Society Guidelines for Diagnosis of Diabetes in Older Adults

OBJECTIVE

Screening for diabetes is typically done using hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The 2019 Endocrine Society guidelines recommend further testing using an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in older adults with prediabetic HbA_1c or FPG. We evaluated the impact of this recommendation on diabetes prevalence, eligibility for glucose-lowering treatment, and estimated cost of implementation in a nationally representative sample.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We included 2,236 adults aged ≥65 years without known diabetes from the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Diabetes was defined using: 1) the Endocrine Society approach (HbA_1c ≥6.5%, FPG ≥126 mg/dL, or 2-h plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dL among those with HbA_1c 5.7-6.4% or FPG 100-125 mg/dL); and 2) a standard approach (HbA_1c ≥6.5% or FPG ≥126 mg/dL). Treatment eligibility was defined using HbA_1c cut points (≥7% to ≥9%). OGTT screening costs were estimated using Medicare fee schedules.

RESULTS

Diabetes prevalence was 15.7% (∼5.0 million) using the Endocrine Society's approach and 7.3% (∼2.3 million) using the standard approach. Treatment eligibility ranged from 5.4% to 0.06% and 11.8% to 1.3% for diabetes cases identified through the Endocrine Society or standard approach, respectively. By definition, diabetes identified exclusively through the Endocrine Society approach had HbA1_1c <6.5% and would not be recommended for glucose-lowering treatment. Screening all older adults with prediabetic HbA_1c/FPG (∼18.3 million) with OGTT could cost between $737 million and $1.7 billion.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting the 2019 Endocrine Society guidelines would substantially increase the number of older adults classified as having diabetes, require significant financial resources, but likely offer limited benefits.