Cited by 408Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 36 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Potential Overtreatment of Diabetes Mellitus in Older Adults With Tight Glycemic Control

Open access

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: In older adults with multiple serious comorbidities and functional limitations, the harms of intensive glycemic control likely exceed the benefits. OBJECTIVES: To examine glycemic control levels among older adults with diabetes mellitus by health status and to estimate the prevalence of potential overtreatment of diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analysis of the data on 1288 older adults (≥65 years) with diabetes from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2001 through 2010 who had a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement. All analyses incorporated complex survey design to produce nationally representative estimates. EXPOSURES: Health status categories: very complex/poor, based on difficulty with 2 or more activities of daily living or dialysis dependence; complex/intermediate, based on difficulty with 2 or more instrumental activities of daily living or presence of 3 or more chronic conditions; and relatively healthy if none of these were present. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Tight glycemic control (HbA1c level, <7%) and use of diabetes medications likely to result in hypoglycemia (insulin or sulfonylureas). RESULTS: Of 1288 older adults with diabetes, 50.7% (95% CI, 46.6%-54.8%), representing 3.1 million (95% CI, 2.7-3.5), were relatively healthy, 28.1% (95% CI, 24.8%-31.5%), representing 1.7 million (95% CI, 1.4-2.0), had complex/intermediate health, and 21.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-24.4%), representing 1.3 million (95% CI, 1.1-1.5), had very complex/poor health. Overall, 61.5% (95% CI, 57.5%-65.3%), representing 3.8 million (95% CI, 3.4-4.2), had an HbA1c level of less than 7%; this proportion did not differ across health status categories (62.8% [95% CI, 56.9%-68.3%]) were relatively healthy, 63.0% (95% CI, 57.0%-68.6%) had complex/intermediate health, and 56.4% (95% CI, 49.7%-62.9%) had very complex/poor health (P = .26). Of the older adults with an HbA1c level of less than 7%, 54.9% (95% CI, 50.4%-59.3%) were treated with either insulin or sulfonylureas; this proportion was similar across health status categories (50.8% [95% CI, 45.1%-56.5%] were relatively healthy, 58.7% [95% CI, 49.4%-67.5%] had complex/intermediate health, and 60.0% [95% CI, 51.4%-68.1%] had very complex/poor health; P = .14). During the 10 study years, there were no significant changes in the proportion of older adults with an HbA1c level of less than 7% (P = .34), the proportion with an HbA1c level of less than 7% who had complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health (P = .27), or the proportion with an HbA1c level of less than 7% who were treated with insulin or sulfonylureas despite having complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health (P = .65). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although the harms of intensive treatment likely exceed the benefits for older patients with complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health status, most of these adults reached tight glycemic targets between 2001 and 2010. Most of them were treated with insulin or sulfonylureas, which may lead to severe hypoglycemia. Our findings suggest that a substantial proportion of older adults with diabetes were potentially overtreated.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a nationally representative NHANES sample of older US adults with diabetes from 2001–2010, most had tight glycemic control (HbA1c <7%), including many with complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health. Many of these adults were treated with insulin or sulfonylureas, suggesting substantial potential overtreatment.

Key findings

  • Among 1288 older adults with diabetes, 61.5% (95% CI, 57.5%–65.3%), representing 3.8 million US adults, had HbA1c <7%; this proportion did not differ significantly by health status: 62.8% relatively healthy, 63.0% complex/intermediate, and 56.4% very complex/poor (P = .26).
  • Of those with HbA1c <7%, 54.9% (95% CI, 50.4%–59.3%) were treated with insulin or sulfonylureas; treatment was similar across health status categories: 50.8% relatively healthy, 58.7% complex/intermediate, and 60.0% very complex/poor (P = .14).
  • Among adults with complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health, approximately 60% (or 1.0 million) with HbA1c <7% were treated with insulin or sulfonylureas.
  • Over the 10 study years, there were no significant trends in the proportion with HbA1c <7% (P = .34), the proportion with HbA1c <7% who had complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health (P = .27), or treatment with insulin/sulfonylureas among those with complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health (P = .65).

Methods

  • Cross-sectional analysis of NHANES data from 2001–2010, including 1288 adults aged ≥65 years with self-reported diabetes and an HbA1c measurement; analyses incorporated complex survey design to produce nationally representative estimates.
  • Health status was classified using the ADA/AGS framework: very complex/poor health if dialysis-dependent or ≥2 ADL impairments; complex/intermediate health if ≥3 chronic conditions or ≥2 IADL impairments; relatively healthy if neither.
  • Outcomes were tight glycemic control (HbA1c <7%; also examined <6.5%) and use of diabetes medications likely to cause hypoglycemia (insulin or sulfonylureas); weighted proportions and logistic regression were used to assess trends.

Limitations

  • The paper states that combining NHANES cycles may have underpowered detection of subtle trends; medication use relied on prescriptions brought to examination, with some combination therapies not subcategorized; health status used limited ADL/IADL questions and did not account for dementia or cognitive impairment, possibly overestimating relatively healthy adults and underestimating overtreatment; NHANES excludes institutionalized adults; direct harm such as hypoglycemia could not be determined; HbA1c is a poor predictor of self-reported serious hypoglycemia; and a possible shift in HbA1c distribution toward higher values may underestimate overtreatment.
  • Evident from the text: the cross-sectional design cannot establish causality between treatment and outcomes, and the study lacked data on active cancer, clinical depression, falls, and other ADL/IADL impairments used in the ADA/AGS framework.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7345

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 36 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 42 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 18
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 14
26 of 26

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 34 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 408

Metadata

Authors
Lipska, K. J., Ross, J. S., Miao, Y., Shah, N. D., Lee, S. J., & Steinman, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Yale New Haven Hospital (US)
  • San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Lipska, Kasia J.
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2015-03-01
Volume
175
Issue
3
Pages
356
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1985992465
Cited by
408
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 24
FWCI
45.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000142)
  • National Institute on Aging (K08AG032886, L30 AG045923, K23AG030999, K23AG048359, P30 AG21342, R03AG045086, T32AG019134, P30AG021342, P30AG044281)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, older adults, overtreatment, tight glycemic control, HbA1c, hypoglycemia, insulin, sulfonylureas, comorbidities, functional limitations, activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, health status, diabetes medication use, NHANES, cost-effectiveness, quality of life
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Blood Glucose, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Health Status, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Iatrogenic Disease, Insulin, Male, Sulfonylurea Compounds

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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