Guidelines abstracted from the American Geriatrics Society Guidelines for Improving the Care of Older Adults with Diabetes Mellitus: 2013 update
01 Nov 2013-Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (J Am Geriatr Soc)-Vol. 61, Iss: 11, pp 2020-2026
TL;DR: The aim is to improve the care of older people with DM by providing an updated set of evidence-based recommendations individualized to adults with DM aged 65 and older.
Abstract: Author(s): American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Care of Older Adults with Diabetes Mellitus; Moreno, Gerardo; Mangione, Carol M; Kimbro, Lindsay; Vaisberg, Ekaterina
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.
9,618 citations
TL;DR: Current research focuses on measuring the pace of aging to identify individuals who are “aging faster” to test and develop interventions that could prevent or delay the progression of multimorbidity and disability with aging.
Abstract: The global population of individuals over the age of 65 is growing at an unprecedented rate and is expected to reach 1.6 billion by 2050. Most older individuals are affected by multiple chronic diseases, leading to complex drug treatments and increased risk of physical and cognitive disability. Improving or preserving the health and quality of life of these individuals is challenging due to a lack of well-established clinical guidelines. Physicians are often forced to engage in cycles of "trial and error" that are centered on palliative treatment of symptoms rather than the root cause, often resulting in dubious outcomes. Recently, geroscience challenged this view, proposing that the underlying biological mechanisms of aging are central to the global increase in susceptibility to disease and disability that occurs with aging. In fact, strong correlations have recently been revealed between health dimensions and phenotypes that are typical of aging, especially with autophagy, mitochondrial function, cellular senescence, and DNA methylation. Current research focuses on measuring the pace of aging to identify individuals who are "aging faster" to test and develop interventions that could prevent or delay the progression of multimorbidity and disability with aging. Understanding how the underlying biological mechanisms of aging connect to and impact longitudinal changes in health trajectories offers a unique opportunity to identify resilience mechanisms, their dynamic changes, and their impact on stress responses. Harnessing how to evoke and control resilience mechanisms in individuals with successful aging could lead to writing a new chapter in human medicine.
304 citations
TL;DR: High-quality evidence about glycemic treatment in older adults is lacking and optimal decisions need to be made collaboratively with patients, incorporating the likelihood of benefits and harms and patient preferences about treatment and treatment burden.
Abstract: Importance There is substantial uncertainty about optimal glycemic control in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Observations Four large randomized clinical trials (RCTs), ranging in size from 1791 to 11 440 patients, provide the majority of the evidence used to guide diabetes therapy. Most RCTs of intensive vs standard glycemic control excluded adults older than 80 years, used surrogate end points to evaluate microvascular outcomes and provided limited data on which subgroups are most likely to benefit or be harmed by specific therapies. Available data from randomized clinical trials suggest that intensive glycemic control does not reduce major macrovascular events in older adults for at least 10 years. Furthermore, intensive glycemic control does not lead to improved patient-centered microvascular outcomes for at least 8 years. Data from randomized clinical trials consistently suggest that intensive glycemic control immediately increases the risk of severe hypoglycemia 1.5- to 3-fold. Based on these data and observational studies, for the majority of adults older than 65 years, the harms associated with a hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) target lower than 7.5% or higher than 9% are likely to outweigh the benefits. However, the optimal target depends on patient factors, medications used to reach the target, life expectancy, and patient preferences about treatment. If only medications with low treatment burden and hypoglycemia risk (such as metformin) are required, a lower HbA 1c target may be appropriate. If patients strongly prefer to avoid injections or frequent fingerstick monitoring, a higher HbA 1c target that obviates the need for insulin may be appropriate. Conclusions and Relevance High-quality evidence about glycemic treatment in older adults is lacking. Optimal decisions need to be made collaboratively with patients, incorporating the likelihood of benefits and harms and patient preferences about treatment and treatment burden. For the majority of older adults, an HbA 1c target between 7.5% and 9% will maximize benefits and minimize harms.
190 citations
TL;DR: The AGS Guiding Principles for the Care of older adults with multimorbidity using a systematic review of the literature and consensus were translated into a framework of Actions and accompanying Action Steps for decision making for clinicians who provide both primary and specialty care to older people with MCCs as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) is challenging. The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) previously developed The AGS Guiding Principles for the Care of Older Adults With Multimorbidity using a systematic review of the literature and consensus. The objective of the current work was to translate these principles into a framework of Actions and accompanying Action Steps for decision making for clinicians who provide both primary and specialty care to older people with MCCs. A work group of geriatricians, cardiologists, and generalists: (1) articulated the core MCC Actions and the Action Steps needed to carry out the Actions; (2) provided decisional tips and communication scripts for implementing the Actions and Action Steps, using commonly encountered situations: (3) performed a scoping review to identify evidence-based, validated tools for carrying out the MCC Actions and Action Steps; and (4) identified potential barriers to, and mitigating factors for, implementing the MCC Actions. The recommended MCC Actions include: (1) identify and communicate patients' health priorities and health trajectory; (2) stop, start, or continue care based on health priorities, potential benefit vs harm and burden, and health trajectory; and (3) align decisions and care among patients, caregivers, and other clinicians with patients' health priorities and health trajectory. The tips and scripts for carrying out these Actions are included in the full MCC Action Framework available in the supplement (www.GeriatricsCareOnline.org). J Am Geriatr Soc 67:665-673, 2019.
140 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compared a lifestyle intervention with metformin to prevent or delay the development of Type 2 diabetes in nondiabetic individuals. And they found that the lifestyle intervention was significantly more effective than the medication.
Abstract: Background Type 2 diabetes affects approximately 8 percent of adults in the United States. Some risk factors — elevated plasma glucose concentrations in the fasting state and after an oral glucose load, overweight, and a sedentary lifestyle — are potentially reversible. We hypothesized that modifying these factors with a lifestyle-intervention program or the administration of metformin would prevent or delay the development of diabetes. Methods We randomly assigned 3234 nondiabetic persons with elevated fasting and post-load plasma glucose concentrations to placebo, metformin (850 mg twice daily), or a lifestyle modification program with the goals of at least a 7 percent weight loss and at least 150 minutes of physical activity per week. The mean age of the participants was 51 years, and the mean body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) was 34.0; 68 percent were women, and 45 percent were members of minority groups. Results The average follow-up was 2.8 years. The incidence of diabetes was 11.0, 7.8, and 4.8 cases per 100 person-years in the placebo, metformin, and lifestyle groups, respectively. The lifestyle intervention reduced the incidence by 58 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 48 to 66 percent) and metformin by 31 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 17 to 43 percent), as compared with placebo; the lifestyle intervention was significantly more effective than metformin. To prevent one case of diabetes during a period of three years, 6.9 persons would have to participate in the lifestyle-intervention program, and 13.9 would have to receive metformin. Conclusions Lifestyle changes and treatment with metformin both reduced the incidence of diabetes in persons at high risk. The lifestyle intervention was more effective than metformin.
17,333 citations
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.
9,618 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Epidemiologic studies have shown a relationship between glycated hemoglobin levels and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. We investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS In this randomized study, 10,251 patients (mean age, 62.2 years) with a median glycated hemoglobin level of 8.1% were assigned to receive intensive therapy (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level below 6.0%) or standard therapy (targeting a level from 7.0 to 7.9%). Of these patients, 38% were women, and 35% had had a previous cardiovascular event. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The finding of higher mortality in the intensive-therapy group led to a discontinuation of intensive therapy after a mean of 3.5 years of follow-up. RESULTS At 1 year, stable median glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.4% and 7.5% were achieved in the intensive-therapy group and the standard-therapy group, respectively. During follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 352 patients in the intensive-therapy group, as compared with 371 in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P=0.16). At the same time, 257 patients in the intensive-therapy group died, as compared with 203 patients in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.46; P=0.04). Hypoglycemia requiring assistance and weight gain of more than 10 kg were more frequent in the intensive-therapy group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. These findings identify a previously unrecognized harm of intensive glucose lowering in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.)
6,621 citations
TL;DR: Properties of currently available glucose-lowering agents that may guide treatment choice in individual patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are explored.
Abstract: Erratum to: DiabetologiaDOI 10.1007/s00125-012-2534-0In the text box ‘Properties of currently available glucose-lowering agents that may guide treatment choice in individualpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus ’ vildagliptin was incor-rectly assigned footnote ‘a’ (Limited use in the USA/Europe)instead of footnote ‘b’ (Not licensed in the USA).
4,126 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: There was no appreciable evidence that either a higher aspirin dose or any other antiplatelet regimen was more effective than medium dose aspirin in preventing vascular events, so in each of the four main high risk categories overall mortality was significantly reduced.
Abstract: Abstract Objective: To determine the effects of “prolonged” antiplatelet therapy (that is, given for one month or more) on “vascular events” (non-fatal myocardial infarctions, non-fatal strokes, or vascular deaths) in various categories of patients. Design: Overviews of 145 randomised trials of “prolonged” antiplatelet therapy versus control and 29 randomised comparisons between such antiplatelet regimens. Setting: Randomised trials that could have been available by March 1990. Subjects: Trials of antiplatelet therapy versus control included about 70 000 “high risk” patients (that is, with some vascular disease or other condition implying an increased risk of occlusive vascular disease) and 30 000 “low risk” subjects from the general population. Direct comparisons of different antiplatelet regimens involved about 10 000 high risk patients. Results: In each of four main high risk categories of patients antiplatelet therapy was definitely protective. The percentages of patients suffering a vascular event among those allocated antiplatelet therapy versus appropriately adjusted control percentages (and mean scheduled treatment durations and net absolute benefits) were: (a) among about 20 000 patients with acute myocardial infarction, 10% antiplatelet therapy v 14% control (one month benefit about 40 vascular events avoided per 1000 patients treated (2P< 0.00001)); (b) among about 20 000 patients with a past history of myocardial infarction, 13% antiplatelet therapy v 17% control (two year benefit about 40/1000 (2P<0.00001)); (c) among about 10 000 patients with a past history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, 18% antiplatelet therapy v 22% control (three year benefit about 40/1000 (2P<0.00001)); (d) among about 20 000 patients with some other relevant medical history (unstable angina, stable angina, vascular surgery, angioplasty, atrial fibrillation, valvular disease, peripheral vascular disease, etc), 9% v 14% in 4000 patients with unstable angina (six month benefit about 50/1000 (2P<0.00001)) and 6% v 8% in 16 000 other high risk patients (one year benefit about 20/1000 (2P<0.00001)). Reductions in vascular events were about one quarter in each of these four main categories and were separately statistically significant in middle age and old age, in men and women, in hypertensive and normotensive patients, and in diabetic and non: diabetic patients. Taking all high risk patients together showed reductions of about one third in non-fatal myocardial infarction, about one third in non-fatal stroke, and about one sixth in vascular death (each 2P<0.00001). There was no evidence that non-vascular deaths were increased, so in each of the four main high risk categories overall mortality was significantly reduced. The most widely tested antiplatelet regimen was “medium dose” (75-325 mg/day) aspirin. Doses throughout this range seemed similarly effective (although in an acute emergency it might be prudent to use an initial dose of 160-325 mg rather than about 75 mg). There was no appreciable evidence that either a higher aspirin dose or any other antiplatelet regimen was more effective than medium dose aspirin in preventing vascular events. The optimal duration of treatment for patients with a past history of myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischaemic attack could not be determined directly because most trials lasted only one, two, or three years (average about two years). Nevertheless, there was significant (2P<0.00001) further benefit between the end of year 1 and the end of year 3, suggesting that longer treatment might well be more effective. Among low risk recipients of “primary prevention” a significant reduction of one third in non: fatal myocardial infarction was, however, accompanied by a non-significant increase in stroke. Furthermore, the absolute reduction in vascular events was much smaller than for high risk patients despite a much longer treatment period (4.4% antiplatelet therapy v 4.8% control; five year benefit only about four per 1000 patients treated) and was not significant (2P=0.09). Conclusions: Among a much wider range of patients at high risk of occlusive vascular disease than is currently treated routinely, some years of antiplatelet therapy - with aspirin 75-325 mg/day or some other antiplatelet regimen (provided there are no contraindications) - offers worthwhile protection against myocardial infarction, stroke, and death. Significant benefit is evident not only among patients with unstable angina, suspected acute myocardial infarction, or a past history of myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischaemic attack, but also among many other categories of high risk patients (such as those having vascular procedures and those with stable angina or peripheral vascular disease). There is as yet, however, no clear evidence on the balance of risks and benefits of antiplatelet therapy in primary prevention among low risk subjects.
3,706 citations