Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T14:54:37.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 32 - Diabetes Mellitus

from Section III - Care of the Elderly by Organ System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Sara M. Alexanian  and
Lisa B. Caruso
Edited by
Jan Busby-Whitehead ,
Samuel C. Durso ,
Christine Arenson ,
Rebecca Elon ,
Mary H. Palmer  and
William Reichel
Jan Busby-Whitehead
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Samuel C. Durso
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University, Maryland
Christine Arenson
Affiliation:
Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia
Rebecca Elon
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Mary H. Palmer
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
William Reichel
Affiliation:
Georgetown University Medical Center
Get access

Summary

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a dominant chronic disease in the older adult population in the United States as well as in many other countries of the world. The prevalence of DM in the future is only expected to grow with the increase in the population of adults aged 65 and over, the prevalence of obesity, and physical inactivity. Clinicians are faced with many unique challenges when caring for this older diabetic population. The clinician’s major challenges are (1) to avoid symptoms and complications of hyper- and hypoglycemia, (2) to minimize or delay micro- and macrovascular complications, if possible, and (3) to maximize daily functioning. Underlying these challenges is the realization that the geriatric population is a heterogeneous one. Goals of care and treatment decisions may vary, depending more on the patient’s functional abilities and on other comorbidities or coexisting geriatric syndromes, and less on the age of the patient. This chapter will focus on specific aspects of diabetes care in the older adult.

Keywords

diabetes mellitusolder adultglucose targetshypoglycemic agentsblood glucose monitoring
Type
Chapter
Information
Reichel's Care of the Elderly
Clinical Aspects of Aging
 , pp. 395 - 406
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report: Estimates of Diabetes and Its Burden in the United States, 2020. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2020.Google Scholar
American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2017. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41:917–928.Google Scholar
Lin, J, Thompson, TJ, Cheng, XZ, et al. Projection of future diabetes burden in the United States through 2060. Population Health Metrics. 2018; 16:9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Diabetes Association. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of medical care in diabetes – 2020. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43:S14–S31.Google Scholar
Von Korff, M, Gruman, J, Schaefer, J, et al. Collaborative management of chronic illness. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127:136–145.Google Scholar
Kirkman, MS, Briscoe, VJ, Clark, N, et al. Diabetes in older adults: A consensus report. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012; 60:2343–2356.Google ScholarPubMed
American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Diabetes Mellitus. Guidelines abstracted from the American Geriatrics Society guidelines for improving the care of older adults with diabetes mellitus: 2013 update. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013; 61:2020–2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, ML, Dunbar, SA, Jaacks, LM, et al. Macronutrients, food groups, and eating patterns in the management of diabetes: A systematic review of the literature, 2010. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35:434–445.Google Scholar
Colberg, SR, Sigal, RJ, Yardley, JE, et al. Physical activity/exercise, and diabetes: A position statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2016; 39:2065–2079.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998; 352:837–853.Google Scholar
Currie, CJ, Peters, JR, Tynan, A, et al. Survival as a function of HbA(1c) in people with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2010; 375:481–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, ES, Liu, Jy, Moffet, HH, et al. Glycemic control, complications, and death in older diabetic patients: The Diabetes and Aging Study. Diabetes Care. 2011; 34:1329–1336.Google Scholar
Le Roith, D, Biessels, G, Brathwaite, S, et al. Treatment of diabetes in older adults: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019; 104(5):1520–1574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet. 1998; 352:854–865.Google Scholar
American Geriatrics Society 2019 Updated AGS Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 67:674–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajagopalan, R, Perez, A, Ye, Z, et al. Pioglitazone is effective therapy for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Drugs Aging. 2004; 21:259–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nissen, SE, Wolski, K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356:2457–2471.Google Scholar
Dormandy, JA, Charbonnel, B, Eckland, J, et al. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (Prospective pioglitazone clinical trial in macrovascular events): A randomized trial. Lancet. 2005; 366:1279–1289.Google Scholar
Egan, AG, Blind, E, Dunder, K, et al. Pancreatic safety of incretin-based drugs: FDA and EMA assessment. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:794–797.Google Scholar
Marso, SP, Bain, SC, Consoli, A, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(19):1834–1844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marso, SP, Daniels, GH, Brown-Frandsen, K, et al. Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(4):311–322.Google Scholar
Gerstein, HC, Colhoun, HM, Dagenais, GR, et al. Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): A double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2019; 394(10193):121–130.Google Scholar
Gerstein, HC, Colhoun, HM, Dagenais, GR, et al. Dulatglutide and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: An exploratory analysis of the REWIND randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2019; 394(10193):131–138.Google Scholar
Mann, JFE, Orsted, DD, Brown-Frandsen, K, et al. Liraglutide and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(9):839–848.Google Scholar
Tuttle, KR, Lakshmanan, MC, Rayner, B, et al. Dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (AWARD-7): A multicentre, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet. 2018; 6(8):605–617.Google Scholar
Zinman, B, Wanner, C, Lachin, JM, et al. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(22):2117.Google Scholar
Neal, B, Perkovic, V, Mahaffey, KW, et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(7):644–657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkovic, V, Jardine, MJ, Neal, B, et al. Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(24):2295–2306.Google Scholar
Zelniker, TA, Wiviott, SD, Raz, I, et al. SGLT2 inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcomes trials. Lancet. 2019; 393(10166):31–39.Google Scholar
Vigersky, RA, Fonda, SJ, Chellappa, M, Walker, MS, Ehrhardt, NM. Short- and long-term effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35(1):32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruedy, KJ, Parkin, CG, Riddlesworth, TD, Graham, C; DIAMOND Study Group. Continuous glucose monitoring in older adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes using multiple daily injections of insulin: Results from the DIAMOND trial. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017; 11(6):1138–1146.Google Scholar
www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm. Accessed on 04/27/2020.Google Scholar
Cushman, WC, Evans, GW, Byington, RP, et al. ACCORD Study Group: Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:1575–1585.Google Scholar
Curb, JD, Pressel, SL, Cutler, JA, et al. Effect of diuretic-based antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease risk in older diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension: Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program Cooperative Research Group. JAMA. 1996; 276:1886–1892.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 38). BMJ. 1998; 317:703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnett, DK, Blumenthal, RS, Albert, MA, et al. 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2019; 140:e563–e595.Google Scholar
Hernandes-Diaz, S, Garcia Rodriguez, LA. Cardioprotective aspirin users and their excess risk of upper gastrointestinal complications. BMC Med. 2006; 300:2134–2141.Google Scholar
https://nccd.cdc.gov/Toolkit/DiabetesBurden/SelfReported/Bl. Accessed on 05/10/2020.Google Scholar
Kohner, EM, Aldington, SJ, Stratton, IM, et al. United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, 30: Diabetic retinopathy at diagnosis of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and associated risk factors. Archives of Ophthalmology. 1998; 116:297–303.Google Scholar
Singer, DE, Nathan, DM, Fogel, HA, et al. Screening for diabetic retinopathy. Ann Intern Med. 1992; 116:660–671.Google Scholar
Litzelman, DK, Slemenda, CW, Langefeld, CD, et al. Reduction of lower extremity clinical abnormalities in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 119:36–41.Google Scholar
Dorresteijn, JAN, Kriegsman, DMW, Assendelft, WJJ, Valk, GD. Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014; 12:CD001488.Google Scholar
Narres, M, Kvitkina, T, Claessen, H, et al. Incidence of lower extremity amputations in the diabetic compared with the non-diabetic population: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2017 (Aug. 28); 12(8):e0182081.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Logroscino, G, Kang, JH, Grodstein, F. Prospective study of type 2 diabetes and cognitive decline in women aged 70–81 years. BMJ. 2004; 328:548.Google Scholar
Bent, N, Rabbitt, P, Metcalfe, D. Diabetes mellitus and the rate of cognitive ageing. Br J Clin Psychol. 2000; 39:349–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grudala, K, Bansal, D, Schifano, F, Bhansali, A. Diabetes mellitus and risk of dementia: A meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. J Diabetes Investig. 2013; 4:640–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strachan, MWJ, Deary, IJ, Ewing, FME, et al. Is type II diabetes associated with an increased risk of cognitive dysfunction? Diabetes Care. 1997; 20:438–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, JL Kasper, JD. Caregivers of frail elders: Updating a national profile. Gerontologist. 2006; 46:344–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silliman, RA, Bhatti, S, Khan, A, et al. The care of older persons with diabetes mellitus: Families and primary care physicians. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996; 44:1314–1321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×