Cited by 26Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and Education

Adherence to the American Diabetes Association’s glycemic goals in the treatment of diabetes among older americans, 2001-2018

Open access
Le, Phuc, Ayers, Gina, Misra-Hebert, Anita D., Herzig, Shoshana J., Herman, William H., Shaker, Victoria A., Rothberg, Michael B.·2022·Diabetes Care

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess trends in HbA1c and appropriateness of diabetes medication use by patient health status. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional analysis of 2001–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We included older adults age ≥65 years who had ever been told they had diabetes, had HbA1c >6.4%, or had fasting plasma glucose >125 mg/dL. Health status was categorized as good, intermediate, or poor. Being below goal was defined as taking medication despite having HbA1c ≥1% below the glycemic goals of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), which varied by patient health status and time period. Drugs associated with hypoglycemia included sulfonylureas, insulin, and meglitinides. RESULTS: We included 3,539 patients. Mean HbA1c increased over time and did not differ by health status. Medication use increased from 59% to 74% with metformin being the most common drug in patients with good or intermediate health and sulfonylureas and insulin most often prescribed to patients with poor health. Among patients taking medications, prevalence of patients below goal increased while prevalence of those above goal decreased from 2001 to 2018. One-half of patients with poor health and taking medications had below-goal HbA1c; two-thirds received drugs associated with hypoglycemia. Patients with poor health who were below goal had 4.9 (95% CI 2.3–10.4) times the adjusted odds of receiving drugs associated with hypoglycemia than healthy patients. CONCLUSIONS: In accordance with ADA’s newer Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, HbA1c goals were relaxed but did not differ by health status. Below-goal HbA1c was common among patients with poor health; many were prescribed medications associated with a higher risk of hypoglycemia.

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 · 10.2337/dc21-1507

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • Older adults with diabetes categorized as having complex or intermediate health are heterogeneous with respect to their function and life expectancy.

    “Older adults with diabetes categorized as having complex or intermediate health (Table 13.1) are heterogeneous with respect to their function and life expectancy (61)(62)(63).”

    From 13. Older Adults: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i> (2024) · cites this paper as [63]

    The Ascertainment of Health Status section defines intermediate health through several different criteria—chronic illnesses, instrumental ADL impairments, or cognitive impairment—supporting variation in function within that group. It discusses limited life expectancy as a criterion for poor health, but does not establish that life expectancy varies within the intermediate group. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Older adults with diabetes categorized as having complex or intermediate health are heterogeneous with respect to their function and life expectancy.

    “Older adults with diabetes categorized as having complex or intermediate health (Table 13.2) are still heterogeneous with respect to their function and life expectancy”

    From 13. Older Adults: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026 (2026) · cites this paper as [71]

    The Ascertainment of Health Status section defines intermediate health through several alternative criteria, and Table 1 (displayed under Conclusions) shows variation in functional impairments within that group. The paper uses limited life expectancy to identify poor health, but the passages do not establish variation in life expectancy among those classified as intermediate. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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: 19

  1. Kirkman MS, Briscoe VJ, Clark N, et al. Diabetes in older adults. Diabetes Care 2012;35: 2650-2664
  2. Lee AK, Lee CJ, Huang ES, Sharrett AR, Coresh J, Selvin E. Risk factors for severe hypoglycemia in black and white adults with diabetes: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1661-1667
  3. McCoy RG, Lipska KJ, Yao X, Ross JS, Montori VM, Shah ND. Intensive treatment and severe hypoglycemia among adults with type 2 diabetes. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:969-978
  4. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, Kansagara D, et al.; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Hemoglobin A1c targets for glycemic control with pharmacologic therapy for nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a guidance statement update from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2018;168:569-576
  5. Moreno G, Mangione CM, Kimbro L; American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Care of Older Adults with Diabetes Mellitus. Guidelines abs- tracted 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
  6. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, et al.; CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration). A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150:604-612
  7. Sherifali D, Nerenberg K, Pullenayegum E, Cheng JE, Gerstein HC. The effect of oral antidiabetic agents on A1C levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2010; 33:1859-1864
  8. Althouse AD. Adjust for multiple comparisons? It's not that simple. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;101: 1644-1645
  9. Perneger TV. What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ 1998;316:1236-12389553006
  10. Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1990;1:43-46
  11. McCreedy EM, Kane RL, Gollust SE, Shippee ND, Clark KD. Patient-centered guide- lines for geriatric diabetes care: potential missed opportunities to avoid harm. J Am Board Fam Med 2018;31:192-200
  12. Arnold SV, Lipska KJ, Wang J, Seman L, Mehta SN, Kosiborod M. Use of intensive glycemic management in older adults with diabetes mellitus. J Am Geriatr Soc 2018;66: 1190-1194
  13. Thorpe CT, Gellad WF, Good CB, et al. Tight glycemic control and use of hypoglycemic medications in older veterans with type 2 diabetes and comorbid dementia. Diabetes Care 2015;38:588-595
  14. Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al.; Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group. Effects of intensive glucose low- ering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2545-2559
  15. Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al.; ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2560-2572
  16. Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, et al.; VADT Investigators. Glucose control and vas- cular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2009;360:129-139
  17. Agrawal L, Azad N, Emanuele NV, et al.; Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) Study Group. Observation on renal outcomes in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial. Diabetes Care 2011;34:2090-2094
  18. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al.; CANVAS Program Collaborative Group. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2017;377:644-657
  19. Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al.; EMPA-REG OUTCOME Investigators. Empag- liflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mor- tality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2117-2128

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Le, P., Ayers, G., Misra-Hebert, A. D., Herzig, S. J., Herman, W. H., Shaker, V. A., & Rothberg, M. B.
Affiliations
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
  • Center for Value-Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Le, Phuc
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2022-01-25
Volume
45
Issue
5
Pages
1107-1115
ISSN
0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4206918068
Cited by
26
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7
FWCI
3.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K08 HS024128)
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 › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
glycemic control, HbA1c, glycemic targets, older adults, diabetes medication use, hypoglycemia, sulfonylureas, insulin, metformin, health status, NHANES
MeSH terms
Aged, Blood Glucose, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Goals, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Nutrition Surveys, Sulfonylurea Compounds, United States

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