Search

Insulin represents a mainstay of glucose-lowering therapy for many adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Insulin treatments prescribed as standard care for the majority of people with T2DM, such as basal human insulin, may not be optimal in the treatment of frail older adults because of the increased demand on health care staff to administer multiple daily injections and monitor the patient. When choosing an insulin regimen for a frail older person with T2DM, predictability of glucose lowering effect, risk of hypoglycaemia, ease of administration, and simplicity and flexibility of dosing are major determining factors. Multiple daily injections may be too complex for older frail adults, whilst providing an unnecessary degree of tight glycaemic control and low doses of once-daily basal insulin analogues such as insulin degludec may be a reasonable option as cognitive decline or functional disability increases. Although insulin degludec has a substantially higher acquisition cost than routinely used basal human insulin, it has a longer, more predictable pharmacological profile and is more amenable to once-daily administration, translating into a reduced burden of care and potential cost savings for insulin-treated frail older adults. Insulin acquisition cost represents only a small proportion of the total cost of treatment, and it is important to consider the value perspective of insulin therapy in frail older adults from all stakeholders in the health care system.

Prognosis and appropriate treatment goals for older adults with diabetes vary greatly according to frailty. It is now recognised that changes may be needed to diabetes management in some older people. Whilst there is clear guidance on the evaluation of frailty and subsequent target setting for people living with frailty, there remains a lack of formal guidance for healthcare professionals in how to achieve these targets. The management of older adults with type 2 diabetes is complicated by comorbidities, shortened life expectancy and exaggerated consequences of adverse effects from treatment. In particular, older adults are more prone to hypoglycaemia and are more vulnerable to its consequences, including falls, fractures, hospitalisation, cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Thus, assessment of frailty should be a routine component of a diabetes review for all older adults, and glycaemic targets and therapeutic choices should be modified accordingly. Evidence suggests that over-treatment of older adults with type 2 diabetes is common, with many having had their regimens intensified over preceding years when they were in better health, or during more recent acute hospital admissions when their blood glucose levels might have been atypically high, and nutritional intake may vary. In addition, assistance in taking medications, as often occurs in later life following implementation of community care strategies or admittance to a care home, may dramatically improve treatment adherence, leading to a fall in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. As a person with diabetes gets older, simplification, switching or de-escalation of the therapeutic regimen may be necessary, depending on their level of frailty and HbA1c levels. Consideration should be given, in particular, to de-escalation of therapies that may induce hypoglycaemia, such as sulphonylureas and shorter-acting insulins. We discuss the use of available glucose-lowering therapies in older adults and recommend simple glycaemic management algorithms according to their level of frailty.

Introduction Metformin is the recommended initial treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but when this does not give adequate glucose control the choice of which second-line drug to use is uncertain as none have been found to have a better overall glycaemic response. In this real-world study dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sulphonylureas (SU), thiazolidinediones (TZD) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were compared for their effectiveness in lowering glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels for a particular individual based on their clinical characteristics. Methods A retrospective analysis was undertaken of electronic health records of people with T2DM prescribed metformin alongside a DPP4i, SU, TZD or SGLT2i at second-line. Regression modelling was used to model the changes in HbA1c from baseline at month 6 and month 12 for the individual therapies, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results There were 7170 people included in the study. Treatment at second-line with SUs, DPP4i, TZDs and SGLT2i resulted in similar percentages of people achieving the recommended HbA1c target of

Introduction Although some differences between individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors may exist, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) have recommended that ‘prescribers should be encouraged to select the individual DPP-4 inhibitor with the lowest acquisition cost available to them, where all other factors are equal’. We aimed to determine whether or not ‘within class’ switching to alogliptin, the DPP-4 inhibitor with lowest acquisition cost, is a clinically appropriate strategy. Methods This study evaluated people with type 2 diabetes taking DPP-4 inhibitor therapy in addition to at least one other diabetes therapy. Primary care records were reviewed from six clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). For people who had been switched from other DPP-4 inhibitors to alogliptin, an assessment of the impact of switch on both absolute haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and on HbA1c trajectory was undertaken. Persistence on alogliptin and the need for therapy intensification was also assessed. Results Overall, 865 people with diabetes met the eligibility criteria for the study. There was no significant difference between pre- and post-switch mean HbA1c level [8.44% (SD 1.52%) vs 8.42% (1.62%), p = 0.6]. Similarly, for patients where there was sufficient data to assess the impact of switching on HbA1c trajectory (n = 319) minimal impact was identified (actual HbA1c at 3 months 8.33% vs projected 8.31%). The majority of people with diabetes (80.76%) remained on alogliptin treatment at 6 months and only 4.54% required additional diabetes therapies. Switching to alogliptin resulted in a median saving of £7.24 per patient-month. Conclusion Switching United Kingdom (UK) primary care patients from other DPP-4 inhibitors to alogliptin did not result in a statistically significant or clinically meaningful change in HbA1c level and few required the addition of further diabetes therapies, suggesting that therapy change or intensification was not considered necessary in most patients who were switched to alogliptin. Trial Registration ENCePP clinical trial registration number EUPAS29153. Funding Takeda UK Ltd. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-019-0662-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Poorly controlled diabetes is characterized by premature cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. The mechanisms linking hyperglycemia with accelerated atherosclerotic disease have not been fully elucidated; however, are thought to be mediated through vascular inflammation, oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction. The advent of incretin-based therapy, whether by increasing endogenous glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 and glucose-dependent inhibitory polypeptide by inhibition of their breakdown using di-peptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, or augmenting GLP-1 activity using either exendin-4-based drugs or synthetic GLP-1 analogs promised not just improvements in glycemic control, but improvements in endothelial function, lipid profiles and markers of vascular inflammation. As such, it was anticipated they would demonstrate cardiovascular benefit in those with diabetes, indeed early meta-analyses suggested cardiovascular events would be reduced. To date, however, this benefit has failed to materialize, indeed the cardiovascular outcome trials, whilst meeting their primary endpoint of cardiovascular safety, have failed to demonstrate any improvements in stroke or myocardial infarction. This review will explore the data and attempt to answer the question: what went wrong?