Cited by 160Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesDiabetes Treatment and ManagementChronic Disease Management Strategies

Rates of deintensification of blood pressure and glycemic medication treatment based on levels of control and life expectancy in older patients with diabetes mellitus

Open access
Sussman, Jeremy B., Kerr, Eve A., Saini, Sameer D., Holleman, Rob G., Klamerus, Mandi L., Min, Lillian C., Vijan, Sandeep, Hofer, Timothy P.·2015·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Older patients with diabetes mellitus receiving medical treatment whose blood pressure (BP) or blood glucose level are potentially dangerously low are rarely deintensified. Given the established risks of low blood pressure and blood glucose, this is a major opportunity to decrease medication harm. OBJECTIVE: To examine the rate of BP- and blood glucose-lowering medicine deintensification among older patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus who potentially receive overtreatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study conducted using data from the US Veterans Health Administration. Participants included 211 667 patients older than 70 years with diabetes mellitus who were receiving active treatment (defined as BP-lowering medications other than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, or glucose-lowering medications other than metformin hydrochloride) from January 1 to December 31, 2012. Data analysis was performed December 10, 2013, to July 20, 2015. EXPOSURES: Participants were eligible for deintensification of treatment if they had low BP or a low hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level in their last measurement in 2012. We defined very low BP as less than 120/65 mm Hg, moderately low as systolic BP of 120 to 129 mm Hg or diastolic BP (DBP) less than 65 mm Hg, very low HbA1c as less than 6.0%, and moderately low HbA1c as 6.0% to 6.4%. All other values were not considered low. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Medication deintensification, defined as discontinuation or dosage decrease within 6 months after the index measurement. RESULTS: The actively treated BP cohort included 211,667 participants, more than half of whom had moderately or very low BP levels. Of 104,486 patients with BP levels that were not low, treatment in 15.1% was deintensified. Of 25,955 patients with moderately low BP levels, treatment in 16.0% was deintensified. Among 81,226 patients with very low BP levels, 18.8% underwent BP medication deintensification. Of patients with very low BP levels whose treatment was not deintensified, only 0.2% had a follow-up BP measurement that was elevated (BP ≥140/90 mm Hg). The actively treated HbA1c cohort included 179,991 participants. Of 143,305 patients with HbA1c levels that were not low, treatment in 17.5% was deintensified. Of 23,769 patients with moderately low HbA1c levels, treatment in 20.9% was deintensified. Among 12,917 patients with very low HbA1c levels, 27.0% underwent medication deintensification. Of patients with very low HbA1c levels whose treatment was not deintensified, fewer than 0.8% had a follow-up HbA1c measurement that was elevated (≥7.5%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among older patients whose treatment resulted in very low levels of HbA1c or BP, 27% or fewer underwent deintensification, representing a lost opportunity to reduce overtreatment. Low HbA1c or BP values or low life expectancy had little association with deintensification events. Practice guidelines and performance measures should place more focus on reducing overtreatment through deintensification.

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/jamainternmed.2015.5110

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Simplification of the insulin plan to match an individual's self-management abilities and available social and medical support reduces hypoglycemia and disease-related distress without worsening glycemic outcomes.

    “Simplification of the insulin plan to match an individual's self-management abilities and their available social and medical support in these situations has been shown to reduce hypoglycemia and diseaserelated distress without worsening glycemic outcomes (100-103).”

    From 13. Older Adults: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i> (2024) · cites this paper as [101]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) advocate deintensification personalized to individual needs, risks, and benefits. The paper does not report that simplifying an insulin plan to match self-management abilities or available support reduces hypoglycemia or disease-related distress without worsening glycemic outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Simplification of the insulin plan to match an individual's self-management abilities and their available social and medical support reduces hypoglycemia and disease-related distress without worsening glycemic outcomes.

    “Simplification of the insulin plan to match an individual's self-management abilities and their available social and medical support in these situations has been shown to reduce hypoglycemia and disease-related distress without worsening glycemic outcomes (107-110).”

    From 13. Older Adults: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [108]

    The Conclusions recommend deintensification personalized to individual needs, risks, and benefits and describe an initiative to limit glucose overtreatment. But the paper does not report that simplifying an insulin plan to match self-management abilities or available support reduces hypoglycemia and distress without worsening glycemic outcomes. The Rates of Deintensification section says insulin dosages could not be assessed. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Simplification of the insulin plan to match an individual's self-management abilities and available social and medical support is associated with reduced hypoglycemia and disease-related distress without worsening glycemic outcomes.

    “Studies suggest that simplification of the insulin plan to match an individual’s self-management abilities and their available social and medical support is associated with reduced hypoglycemia and disease-related distress without worsening glycemic outcomes”

    From 13. Older Adults: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026 (2026) · cites this paper as [150]

    The Rates of Deintensification section says the study could identify insulin prescriptions but not insulin dosages. The Conclusions recommend personalized deintensification, but our copy does not address whether simplifying an insulin plan to fit self-management abilities and support reduces hypoglycemia or distress without worsening glycemic outcomes. Searches for insulin-plan simplification and those outcomes found no supporting passage; page numbers were unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Jha AK, Perlin JB, Kizer KW, Dudley RA. Effect of the transformation of the Veterans Affairs health care system on the quality of care. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(22):2218-2227.
  2. Saaddine JB, Cadwell B, Gregg EW, et al. Improvements in diabetes processes of care and intermediate outcomes: United States, 1988-2002. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(7):465-474.
  3. Beard AJ, Hofer TP, Downs JR, et al; Diabetes Clinical Action Measures Workgroup. Assessing appropriateness of lipid management among patients with diabetes mellitus: moving from target to treatment. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(1):66-74.
  4. Kerr EA, Lucatorto MA, Holleman R, Hogan MM, Klamerus ML, Hofer TP; VA Diabetes Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) Workgroup on Clinical Action Measures. Monitoring performance for blood pressure management among patients with diabetes mellitus: too much of a good thing? Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(12):938-945.
  5. Tseng CL, Soroka O, Maney M, Aron DC, Pogach LM. Assessing potential glycemic overtreatment in persons at hypoglycemic risk. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(2):259-268.
  6. 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(17):1575-1585.
  7. Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al; Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(24):2545-2559.
  8. Dumbreck S, Flynn A, Nairn M, et al. Drug-disease and drug-drug interactions: systematic examination of recommendations in 12 UK national clinical guidelines. BMJ. 2015;350:h949.
  9. Mossello E, Pieraccioli M, Nesti N, et al. Effects of low blood pressure in cognitively impaired elderly patients treated with antihypertensive drugs. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(4):578-585.
  10. Benetos A, Labat C, Rossignol P, et al. Treatment with multiple blood pressure medications, achieved blood pressure, and mortality in older nursing home residents: the PARTAGE study. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(6): 989-995.
  11. Workgroup AGSCW; AGS Choosing Wisely Workgroup. American Geriatrics Society identifies five things that healthcare providers and patients should question. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(4):622- 631.
  12. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 Evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311(5):507-520.
  13. UK 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(9131):854-865.
  14. Bangalore S, Messerli FH, Wun CC, et al; Treating to New Targets Steering Committee and Investigators. J-curve revisited: an analysis of blood pressure and cardiovascular events in the Treating to New Targets (TNT) trial. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(23): 2897-2908.
  15. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003;289(19): 2560-2572.
  16. Ismail-Beigi F, Moghissi E, Tiktin M, Hirsch IB, Inzucchi SE, Genuth S. Individualizing glycemic targets in type 2 diabetes mellitus: implications of recent clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(8): 554-559.
  17. Kistler CE, Kirby KA, Lee D, Casadei MA, Walter LC. Long-term outcomes following positive fecal occult blood test results in older adults: benefits and burdens. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(15):1344-1351.
  18. Kerr EA, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Klamerus ML, Subramanian U, Hogan MM, Hofer TP. The role of clinical uncertainty in treatment decisions for diabetic patients with uncontrolled blood pressure. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(10):717-727.
  19. UK 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(9131):837-853.
  20. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ. 1998;317(7160):703-713.
  21. Heisler M, Hogan MM, Hofer TP, Schmittdiel JA, Pladevall M, Kerr EA. When more is not better: treatment intensification among hypertensive patients with poor medication adherence. Circulation. 2008;117(22):2884-2892.
  22. Kerr EA, Heisler M, Krein SL, et al. Beyond comorbidity counts: how do comorbidity type and severity influence diabetes patients' treatment priorities and self-management? J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(12):1635-1640.
  23. Kerr EA, Fleming B. Making performance indicators work: experiences of US Veterans Health Administration. BMJ. 2007;335(7627):971-973.
  24. Sussman J, Vijan S, Hayward R. Using benefit-based tailored treatment to improve the use of antihypertensive medications. Circulation. 2013;128(21):2309-2317.
  25. Kerr EA, Hayward RA. Patient-centered performance management: enhancing value for patients and health care systems. JAMA. 2013;310 (2):137-138.
  26. Kerr EA, Smith DM, Hogan MM, et al. Building a better quality measure: are some patients with "poor quality" actually getting good care? Med Care. 2003;41(10):1173-1182.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sussman, J. B., Kerr, E. A., Saini, S. D., Holleman, R. G., Klamerus, M. L., Min, L. C., Vijan, S., & Hofer, T. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • VA Center for Clinical Management Research (US)
Corresponding author
Sussman, Jeremy B.
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2015-12-01
Volume
175
Issue
12
Pages
1942
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1845444019
Cited by
160
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 2
FWCI
11.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (I01 HX002014, IK2 HX001368)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
blood pressure reduction, hypotension, hypoglycemia, overtreatment, older adults, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, HbA1c, life expectancy, veterans, drug-related harm, antihypertensive drugs, antidiabetic drugs, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, metformin
MeSH terms
Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Glucose, Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypertension, Hypoglycemic Agents, Life Expectancy, Male, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies

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