Clinical Profile of Elderly Patients (Over 90 Years) with Type 2 Diabetes Seen at a Diabetes Center in South India

Expert Consensus Recommendations on Time in Range for Monitoring Glucose Levels in People with Diabetes: An Indian Perspective

Keeping up with the global scenario, diabetes prevalence is on rise in India. Inadequate glycemic control is a major cause of diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. The conventional standards of care (SOC) in diabetes, including self-monitoring of blood glucose and measurement of glycated hemoglobin, have supported achievement of glycemic control, yet there are a few limitations. With the use of current technologies and metrics, such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and standardized CGM data reporting, the continuous real-time glucose levels can be measured, and importantly, the percentage of time above, below, and within the target glucose range can be calculated, which facilitates patient-centric care, a current goal in diabetes management. International consensus recommendations endorse the incorporation of CGM and CGM data reporting in SOC for diabetes management. The guidelines provide time in range (TIR) thresholds for different patient populations and different types of diabetes. However, extrapolation of these global guidelines does not aptly cover the Indian population, which has diverse diet, culture, and religious practices. In this context, a consensus meeting was held in India in 2021 with experts in the field of diabetes care. The purpose of the meeting was to develop consensus recommendations for TIR thresholds for different patient profiles in India. Those expert recommendations, together with an evidence-based review, are reported here. The aim of this agreement is to aid clinicians across India to routinely use CGM and CGM data reports for optimizing individualized diabetes care, by implementing clinical targets for TIR.

Clinical features and sulfonylurea usage among outpatients with diabetes aged ≥90 years in an urban diabetes clinic in Tokyo

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Aging of society is accelerating in many countries. The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical features and sulfonylurea usage among diabetes outpatients aged ≥90 years (nonagenarians).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a retrospective observational study. The study population consisted of 69 nonagenarian diabetes outpatients and 857 diabetes outpatients aged <90 years. Patients were classified into four groups: group 1, <65 years; group 2, 65-74 years; group 3, 75-89 years; and group 4, ≥90 years. The presence of hypoglycemic episodes was defined as having self-reported symptoms, or self-monitored or clinically measured blood glucose level <70 mg/dL.

RESULTS

The median glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in group 1 and group 4 was 7.0% and 7.2%, respectively (P = 0.506). The proportion of sulfonylurea treatment in group 4 was 45.5%, which is significantly higher compared with the other three groups (20.0-27.8%, P < 0.001). In group 4, there was no difference between patients with or without sulfonylurea in age, sex, body mass index, HbA1c and number of antihyperglycemic agents. Five out of 25 nonagenarian sulfonylurea-treated patients had hypoglycemic episodes within the last 2 years, their HbA1c were all 7.0 ≤ HbA1c < 8.0, and sulfonylurea or insulin was tapered in all cases after confirming hypoglycemia. Tapering dosage was attempted in all 25 sulfonylurea-treated nonagenarian patients, but 15 needed to continue sulfonylurea for glycemic control, and 10 continued sulfonylurea with unknown reasons from their medical records.

CONCLUSIONS

Although tapering the dosage of sulfonylurea was attempted in nonagenarian patients, sulfonylurea was widely continued for glycemic control. Reverse clinical inertia may exist in some sulfonylurea-treated nonagenarian patients.

Management of Type 2 Diabetes in Developing Countries: Balancing Optimal Glycaemic Control and Outcomes with Affordability and Accessibility to Treatment

With the growing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, particularly in emerging countries, its management in the context of available resources should be considered. International guidelines, while comprehensive and scientifically valid, may not be appropriate for regions such as Asia, Latin America or Africa, where epidemiology, patient phenotypes, cultural conditions and socioeconomic status are different from America and Europe. Although glycaemic control and reduction of micro- and macrovascular outcomes remain essential aspects of treatment, access and cost are major limiting factors; therefore, a pragmatic approach is required in restricted-resource settings. Newer agents, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in particular, are relatively expensive, with limited availability despite potentially being valuable for patients with insulin resistance and cardiovascular complications. This review makes a case for the role of more accessible second-line treatments with long-established efficacy and affordability, such as sulfonylureas, in the management of type 2 diabetes, particularly in developing or restricted-resource countries.