CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 309Diabetes Treatment and ManagementPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesDiabetes Management and Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 169 of the 169 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Polypharmacy in the Aging Patient: A Review of Glycemic Control in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

Open access
Lipska, Kasia J., Krumholz, Harlan, Soones, Tacara, Lee, Sei J.·2016·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2016.0299PMC PMC4823136
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 A1c (HbA1c) 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 HbA1c target may be appropriate. If patients strongly prefer to avoid injections or frequent fingerstick monitoring, a higher HbA1c 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 HbA1c target between 7.5% and 9% will maximize benefits and minimize harms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2016.0299

Cites

169 of 169 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [68]Bloomfield HE Greer N Newman D Predictors and consequences of severe hypoglycemia in adults with diabetes—a systematic review of the evidence VA-ESP Project #09-009 2012 Accessed October 1, 2015 http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/hypoglycemia-2012.pdf 23256228

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 309

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lipska, K. J., Krumholz, H., Soones, T., & Lee, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Yale New Haven Hospital (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2016-03-08
Volume
315
Issue
10
Pages
1034
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2016.0299
PMC
PMC4823136
OpenAlex
W2295084748
Cited by
309
References
167
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 34
FWCI
50.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (K23AG048359, K23AG040779, P30AG021342, P30AG044281)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
polypharmacy, older adults, type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, tight glycemic control, HbA1c targets, hypoglycemia risk, metformin, patient preferences, shared decision-making, treatment burden, microvascular outcomes, macrovascular events
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Life Expectancy, Male, Time Factors, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Polypharmacy, Patient Preference, Observational Studies as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review