VOL. 17 NO. 1 1999

These pages are best viewed with Netscape version 3.0 or higher or Internet Explorer version 3.0 or higher. When viewed with other browsers, some characters or attributes may not be rendered correctly.

Management of Diabetes in the Elderly

Jeffrey I. Wallace, MD, MPH


The management of older adults with type 2 diabetes requires careful consideration of the effects that advancing age and changes in health status can have on the competing risks and benefits of therapeutic interventions. Although tight glycemic control is not always an appropriate treatment goal, many older people with diabetes are undertreated and could benefit from improved glycemic control and more aggressive management of risk factors for macrovascular disease.

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes, which represents roughly 90% of all diabetes, increases with age and affects 18–20% of people over age 65 in the United States (with a substantial percentage of these cases being undiagnosed).1Recent recommendations to screen all adults over 45 years of age for elevated glucose levels, with retesting every 3 years, should substantially reduce the number of undiagnosed diabetic patients.2 In addition to the 20% of the elderly population with frank diabetes, another 20–25% fit criteria for impaired glucose tolerance, a state that is associated with a twofold increase in the incidence of macrovascular complications.3

The average life expectancy for a 65-year-old woman and man in the United States is 19 years and 15 years, respectively. At age 75, it is 12 and 9 years, respectively.4 Because many older diabetic patients can be expected to live a decade or more after diagnosis, clinicians must carefully weigh the potential risks and benefits of available interventions on reducing the excess morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes.

Risks of Diabetic Complications in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
Before reviewing the benefits of specific therapeutic interventions, it is important to consider the magnitude of the risks associated with type 2 diabetes in older adults.

Macrovascular disease
The morbidity and mortality associated with macrovascular events far outweigh the risks of microvascular complications in older people with diabetes. In the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), 9% of type 2 diabetic patients developed microvascular disease after 9 years of follow-up, compared to rates of 20% for macrovascular complications.5 In the United States, where diabetes is the fourth most common cause of death, atherosclerotic macrovascular disease accounts for as much as 75% of all mortality in type 2 diabetes.6

A recent prospective study indicated that patients with type 2 diabetes without a history of prior heart attack have equal, if not greater, risks of myocardial infarction (MI) compared to those without diabetes who have had prior heart attacks (20.2% vs. 18.8% incidence of MI, respectively, over 7 years).7 Although not from an intervention trial, these data suggest that older diabetic patients should be treated as aggressively for diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors as the secondary prevention efforts currently aimed at people with known cardiovascular disease.

Microvascular disease
Diabetes is the most frequent cause of blindness and renal failure in the United States, and the microvascular complications of diabetes rise with increasing duration of disease and worsening glycemic control.8,9 Although improving glycemic control clearly reduces microvascular complications, it is important to recognize that the incidence of severe or end-stage microvascular complications is much lower for type 2 diabetic patients than for type 1 patients, presumably because of their older age of onset and increased competing risks for death.9

Estimates of the lifetime risks of developing blindness due to diabetic retinopathy or of progressing to end-stage renal disease demonstrate the decline in these risks with advancing age of onset of type 2 diabetes (Table 1).9 These estimates are similar to the observed rates of renal failure in the UKPDS trials but are somewhat lower than observed rates of blindness, in part because UKPDS rates included all causes of blindness rather than only cases in which blindness was due to diabetic retinopathy.10

Table 1. Lifetime Risks of Blindness from Diabetic Retinopathy and of End-Stage Renal Disease: Variance by Age at Diabetes Onset and Baseline Glycemic Control

Lifetime Risk for Blindness/Lifetime Risk for End-Stage Renal Disease (%)

Age at Onset of Type 2 Diabetes

HbA1c 45 years 55 years 65 years 75 years
0.3 / 2.0
1.1 / 2.7
2.6 / 3.5
5.0 / 4.3
7.9 / 5.0
0.1 / 0.9
0.5 / 1.3
1.2 / 1.6
2.5 / 2.1
4.4 / 2.5
<0.1 / 0.3
0.2 / 0.5
0.5 / 0.6
1.0 / 0.8
1.9 / 0.9
<0.1 / 0.1
<0.1 / 0.1
0.1 / 0.1
0.3 / 0.2
0.5 / 0.2
Adapted from reference 9.

The risk estimates in Table 1 also indicate a nonlinear association between microvascular complications and glycemic control, such that the potential for reductions in complications is greater when glycemic control improves from poor to moderate (e.g., from HbA1c 11% to 9%) as compared to improvement from moderate to near-normal (e.g., from HbA1c 9% to 7%). To properly evaluate the potential benefits of therapeutic interventions on microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes, clinicians must carefully consider the patient's age at onset, overall health status/expected survival, and existing level of glycemic control.

Glycemic Management Issues in Older Diabetic Patients
The overall approach to the management of diabetes and its cardinal finding of hyperglycemia has been debated for many years. Recent findings from the UKPDS trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of tight glucose control on slowing the progression of microvascular (and, for metformin [Glucophage], macrovascular) complications in relatively healthy, newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients.10 While the application of these findings to elderly type 2 diabetic patients may be appropriate for many, the younger age of the study cohort (mean age at enrollment 5368, range 25–65 years) and the study exclusion criteria (e.g., current angina or heart failure, more than one major vascular event, retinopathy requiring laser treatment, serum creatinine >175 mmol/L, severe concurrent illness that would limit life or require extensive systemic treatment) limit extrapolation of the observed risks and benefits to older and more frail elderly patients. Because physiological heterogeneity of the elderly ranges from healthy and active to very frail, clinicians' approach to what constitutes acceptable glucose control must be carefully individualized.3

Table 2. Factors That Predispose Elderly Type 2 Diabetic Patients to Hypoglycemia

  • Poor or erratic nutritional intake
  • Changes in mental status that impair the perception or response to hypoglycemia
  • Increased polypharmacy and noncompliance with medications
  • Dependence or isolation that limits receipt of early treatment for hypoglycemia
  • Impaired renal or hepatic metabolism
  • Presence of comorbid conditions that can mask or lead to misdiagnosis of hypoglycemic symptoms (dementia, delirium, depression, sleep abnormalities, seizures, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident)

Adapted from reference 3.

The major risk of tight glucose control is hypoglycemia. Even among the relatively young and healthy population in the UKPDS trials, the incidence of hypoglycemia was two times greater in the intensive treatment compared to conventional treatment groups (excluding metformin). The annual rate of one or more major hypoglycemic episodes (help from another person or medical intervention needed) was 1.8% among people assigned to intensive therapy with insulin, 1.0–1.4% for those using oral sulfonylureas, and 0.7% for those in the conventional treatment group.10 Factors that may predispose older diabetic patients to more frequent or severe hypoglycemic events are listed in Table 2.

The goal for many otherwise healthy elderly diabetic patients should probably be the same as for younger patients, namely, near-normal fasting plasma glucose levels (<7 mmol/L, HbA1c <7%) without hypoglycemia. In elderly patients whose care is complicated by chronic medical illness, frailty, isolation, or a shortened life expectancy, a more realistic therapeutic goal may be reducing the signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (i.e., polyuria, fatigue, and weight loss) rather than attaining euglycemia. Maintenance of fasting glucose levels <11–14 mmol/L is generally adequate to achieve these goals, and in most cases a fasting plasma glucose level of <11mmol/L (corresponding to an HbA1c <8.1%) is attainable with few hypoglycemic episodes.

Of note, a recent short-term study further reinforced the argument to strive for good glycemic control among older type 2 diabetic patients. In a 12-week, placebo-controlled trial of glipizide (Glucotrol, Glucotrol XL) in type 2 diabetic patients aged 30–85 years, improved glycemic control (HbA1c 9.3% vs. HbA1c 7.5%) was associated with enhanced quality of life scores and better general perceived health, cognitive functioning, sleep, depression, and vitality.11 Subjects with better glycemic control also experienced fewer bed-days and fewer restricted-activity days. These results indicate that the short-term health benefits of improved glycemic control are important considerations even for those patients in whom long-term health benefits of glycemic control may not be an issue.

Strategies to Reduce Diabetes Complications

Macrovascular disease
The prevalence of risk factors for macrovascular disease (i.e., hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, sedentary lifestyle) are 2–4 times more common in older patients with type 2 diabetes.12 Moreover, people with type 2 diabetes are also more likely to have multiple risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD) than age-matched individuals without diabetes.

However, despite their high prevalence, established CHD risk factors account for no more than half of the excess CHD observed in type 2 diabetes.12 While hyperglycemia appears to be independently associated with CHD, data demonstrating benefits of tight glycemic control on macrovascular disease in type 2 diabetes are currently more limited relative to the data supporting interventions for other CHD risk factors.

Glycemic control. While epidemiological data demonstrate that increased glucose levels are associated with increased macrovascular disease events, the impact of especially tight glycemic control on reducing macrovascular events is less certain. Although concern exists that higher insulin levels and weight gain associated with some diabetes treatments might adversely affect rates of macrovascular events,13 recently published UKPDS data showed no negative effects of intensive therapy with sulfonylureas or insulin on macrovascular events.10 To the contrary, MI rates were lower with improved glycemic control (HbA1c 7.9% vs. 7.0%), although the reduction did not quite reach statistical significance (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71–1.00, P =.052).10 The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) in type 1 diabetic patients also found lower macrovascular complications with improved glycemic control (HbA1c 9.0% vs. 7.0%), but again their results did not quite reach statistical significance (41% reduction, P = 0.08).14 These trials clearly show a lack of adverse effects and suggest a benefit of improved glycemic control with sulfonylureas or insulin on macrovascular outcomes.

Of note, metformin, an agent associated with less weight gain and fewer hypoglycemic attacks, did demonstrate statistically significant reductions in MI rates with improved glycemic control (HbA1c 8.0% vs. 7.4%) among overweight diabetic patients after 10 years of treatment (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41–0.89, P = 0.01).15 It is possible that macrovascular benefits of improved glycemic control with sulfonylureas or insulin are partially offset by adverse effects of weight gain on lipids and blood pressure, direct atherogenic effects of insulin, and/or acute events precipitated by hypoglycemia.13

Hypertension. The prevalence of hypertension in type 2 diabetic patients rises from 40% at age 45 to 60% by age 75, a factor that contributes significantly to both macro- and microvascular disease complications.16,17 Therefore, screening for and aggressive treatment of hypertension are critical components of diabetes care. In most cases, therapy should be instituted if blood pressure (BP) exceeds 140/90 mmHg, and expert opinion suggests a treatment goal of BP <130/85 for patients with type 2 diabetes.18

The UKPDS randomized trial of tight blood pressure (aiming at a BP <150/85) found that treated subjects (mean BP 144/82) had risk reductions of 34% and 37% in macrovascular and microvascular endpoints, respectively, compared to the group assigned to less tight control (mean BP 154/87).17 The statistically significant reductions in microvascular disease (P = 0.009) were predominantly due to a reduced risk for retinal photocoagulation, whereas the statistically significant risk reduction in the aggregate macrovascular endpoint (P = 0.019) included reductions of 21% for MI (P = 0.13), 44% for stroke (P = 0.01), 49% for peripheral vascular disease (P= 0.17), and 56% for congestive heart failure (P = 0.004). Although the agents of first choice in this trial (atenolol [Tenormin] and captopril [Capoten]) are thought to have potential advantages over other antihypertensive agents for diabetic patients, the beneficial effects observed were felt to be due to the blood pressure reduction itself more than to the specific treatment agents used.19,20

The findings of a subgroup analysis from the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program is consistent with this conclusion. In this trial, older type 2 diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension were randomized to receive treatment with low-dose diuretics (chlorthalidone 12.5–25 mg/day) with step-ups to atenolol or reserpine as needed.21 The relative risk reduction of 34% in aggregate macrovascular events mirrors exactly that observed in the UKPDS trial, and the 56% reduction in CHD endpoints further supports the utility of blood pressure lowering with diuretic-based therapy in older type 2 diabetic patients.

Hyperlipidemia. Although the association between hyperlipidemia and cardiovascular events declines with age, a significant association has been shown to persist into the eighth decade of life.22 Further, primary prevention trials with older adults up to age 73 years and secondary prevention trials involving adults up to age 75 years clearly demonstrate that lowering cholesterol levels can significantly reduce cardiovascular event rates in older adults with and without diabetes.23-25

Because of their higher baseline risks, the actual number of macrovascular events prevented by treatment of hyperlipidemia may be greatest for older diabetic patients.25 Diabetic patients with elevated lipid levels who are expected to survive at least 1–2 years (the time frame to attain benefits conferred by lipid-lowering) should be strongly considered for primary and secondary prevention efforts at least as aggressive as those outlined by the National Cholesterol Education Program expert panel.26

Tobacco. The health benefits of tobacco cessation begin within 3-6 months and extend from reduced atherosclerotic disease and lower cancer rates to improved lung function. Smoking and diabetes are synergistic risk factors for atherosclerotic disease. All possible measures should be used to prevent and encourage discontinuation of tobacco use.

Use of Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blockers in older diabetic patients. Abundant evidence indicates that Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blockers reduce recurrent cardiac events when used in secondary prevention after MI for both diabetic and nondiabetic patients.27 Yet despite higher risks of post-infarct mortality compared with nondiabetic patients and evidence that diabetic patients may experience greater cardioprotection with Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blockade than do nondiabetic patients,28 diabetic patients do not receive Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blockers as often as nondiabetic patients do.27,29

There is little evidence to support withholding Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blockers from diabetic patients based on concerns of adverse metabolic effects of Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blockers or their masking of hypoglycemic symptoms.27,28,30 The safety and efficacy of atenolol in hypertensive diabetic patients was well demonstrated in the UKPDS trials.17 Further, data from other studies demonstrate that after MI, patients with conditions that are often considered contraindications to Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blockade (including diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, low blood pressure, and low left ventricular ejection fractions) do frequently tolerate and benefit from Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blocker therapy.27,28 Unless absolute contraindications are present (heart block, bradycardia, hypotension, poorly controlled heart failure, severe pulmonary disease), diabetic patients with prior MIs should receive Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blockers.

Microvascular disease
Glycemic control.
As previously outlined, the absolute benefits of improved glycemic control on microvascular complications appear to be greatest when moving from poor control (HbA1c >11%) to moderate-to-good glycemic control (HbA1c 8–9%).9 As demonstrated in the UKPDS trials, further reductions in HbA1c below 8% clearly further reduce microvascular complications, but because of the lower overall complication rates at these levels of HbA1c, the marginal number of events prevented is smaller.10,15 Thus, although the UKPDS trial achieved a 25% risk reduction in aggregate microvascular endpoints (much of which was due to a reduction in the need for retinal photocoagulation) in association with glycemic control of HbA1c of 7.9 versus 7.0%, the absolute risk reduction was 2.8 events per 1,000 patient-years (number needed to treat = 35 patients for 10 years to prevent one microvascular event).10

Similar risk reductions in microvascular risks were observed with intensive glycemic control efforts using metformin in overweight subjects (HbA1c 8.0 vs. 7.4% ).15 Diabetic neuropathy affects over 50% of patients who have had type 2 diabetes for more than 15 years, and, as with other microvascular complications, improved glycemic control appears to reduce the incidence of neuropathy.8,10,16

Because postprandial glucose elevations tend to be higher in elderly diabetic patients, intensive efforts to reduce HbA1c to normal or near-normal levels may greatly increase the risk of hypoglycemic events occurring between meals. Unless tight glycemic control can be accomplished with low rates of hypoglycemia (and low rates of other potential adverse treatment effects), the marginal benefits of lowering HbA1c below 8% may not be worth the attendant risks for many elderly diabetic patients. As previously noted, the age at onset, health status, and motivation of older diabetic patients are critical factors to consider in determining treatment goals.

Blood pressure control. Aggressive control of blood pressure may have beneficial effects on microvascular complications equal to or greater than that of tight glycemic control (at least within the relatively narrow range of improvements in HbA1c that occurred in the UKPDS trials).10,15 In a UKPDS trial of tight blood pressure control, the group assigned to tight control (BP 144/82) had a 37% reduction in microvascular disease endpoints compared to the group assigned to less tight control (BP 154/87).17 Further, the beneficial effects of improved blood pressure control extended to cardiovascular and stroke events, which occur with much greater frequency (and with greater morbidity and mortality) than microvascular complications in elderly diabetic patients. As outlined above, aggressive control of blood pressure should be a high priority in the management of older hypertensive diabetic patients.

Specific Interventions for the Management of Hyperglycemia

Lifestyle interventions
Diet and exercise are the cornerstones of diabetic treatment at all ages. Although weight loss increases insulin sensitivity and has favorable effects on lipids and blood pressure, dietary strategies and even very-low-calorie diets are seldom effective in achieving long-term weight reduction.16

A low-fat diet and endurance exercise each can reduce insulin resistance, and both are associated with mild weight loss.3,31 Thus, many recommend a simple noncaloric-restricted, low-fat (<30% of calories), high-carbohydrate (>50% of calories) diet, in combination with endurance exercise for older diabetic patients. The exercise prescribed need not be intense to confer benefits. Even moderate leisure activity has been associated with a reduced risk of developing diabetes.32 Patients who do not achieve desired glycemic control with an individualized nutrition and exercise program are candidates for pharmacological therapy.

Pharmacological interventions
Although sulfonylureas traditionally have been used as first-line pharmacological therapy for type 2 diabetic patients, many experts and the UKPDS data reviewed above suggest that, in the absence of contraindications (see below), metformin may be the agent of first choice for diabetic patients who are overweight (as the majority of type 2 diabetic patients are).15 Metformin, the only biguanide currently available in the United States, lowers blood glucose primarily by reducing hepatic gluconeogenesis. Since metformin does not enhance insulin release, it is seldom associated with hypoglycemia, nor is it associated with significant weight gain.

Although these characteristics make its use appealing for older overweight diabetic patients, metformin's potential for the rare, but often fatal, complication of lactic acidosis specifically limits its use in patients with renal or hepatic dysfunction or congestive heart failure requiring pharmacological therapy.33 The manufacturer's listed contraindications include a serum creatinine >133 mmol/L (1.5 mg/dl) for men; a creatinine >124 mmol/L (1.4 mg/dl) for women. In addition, because serum creatinine does not reflect renal function as well with advanced age, the manufacturer recommends that "treatment should not be initiated in patients >80 years unless measurement of creatinine clearance demonstrates that renal function is not reduced."

Although the oldest patients treated with metformin in the UKPDS trial did not exceed age 75 and patients with current heart failure were excluded from the study, subjects with serum creatinine up to 175 mmol/L (2.0 mg/dl) were included without any reported cases of lactic acidosis.15

In addition to the above contraindications, which may greatly limit metformin's use in elderly diabetic patients, gastrointestinal side effects, including anorexia, nausea, and abdominal discomfort, are seen in up to 30% of patients.16 A starting dose of 500 mg per day can reduce these side effects, increasing the drug by 500 mg a week as necessary to achieve the desired level of glycemic control.

Sulfonylureas. The primary mechanism of action of sulfonylureas is enhanced pancreatic Beta.gif (968 bytes)-cell secretion of insulin. Some experts suggest that these agents are the drugs of first choice for nonobese type 2 diabetic patients. Although there were no major differences in the efficacy or safety of the sulfonylureas used in the UKPDS trials (chlorpropramide [Diabinese], glibenclamide [glyburide; DiaBeta, Glynase, Micronase], and glipizide),10 the shorter-acting second-generation sulfonylureas are preferred, and chlorpropramide should not be used in the elderly due to its long half-life, antidiuretic effect, and association with severe and prolonged hypoglycemia.3,16 Further, of the second-generation sulfonylureas, glipizide has been associated with lower rates of hypoglycemia, an important consideration in the elderly.34 In one study, glipizide gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) was associated with lower insulin secretion (as measured by C-peptide) while maintaining similar glycemic control compared to glyburide, although neither agent was associated with hypoglycemia in this short-term fasting study.35

All oral sulfonylureas can cause hypoglycemia. Doses should be started at the low end of the dosing range and cautiously increased while monitoring efficacy and adverse effects.

alphasmll.gif (897 bytes)-glucosidase inhibitors. alphasmll.gif (897 bytes)-glucosidase inhibitors such as acarbose (Precose) interfere with a family of enzymes in the intestine responsible for converting nonabsorbable dietary starch and sucrose into absorbable monosaccharides (e.g., glucose). Consequently, acarbose reduces the rate of uptake of glucose into the bloodstream and decreases postprandial blood glucose levels.

This mechanism of action is physiologically appealing because it helps reduce the increased postprandial hyperglycemia that older type 2 diabetic patients have relative to their younger counterparts, with little risk of hypoglycemia.3 However, reductions in HbA1c with acarbose tend to be modest (0.4-0.9%), and this agent may be most appropriate for use in patients with mild hyperglycemia or to help reduce postprandial glucose fluctuations in combination with other agents.36

Perhaps more importantly, compliance can be difficult because although acarbose produces few systemic effects, it does allow undigested carbohydrate to reach the large bowel where it ferments, causing flatulence, bloating, and diarrhea. These effects usually diminish over time, and a low starting dose (25 mg once a day) with gradual upward titration over 6 weeks can help reduce initial gastrointestinal side effects.16

Thiazolidinediones. Troglitazone (Rezulin), the first agent in this relatively new class of drugs, reduces peripheral and hepatic insulin resistance and appears to lower glucose levels primarily by augmenting insulin-mediated peripheral glucose disposal.37 Although troglitazone requires the presence of insulin to work, it does not stimulate insulin secretion and thus, by itself, is unlikely to cause hypoglycemia.

Well-conducted trials have demonstrated that troglitazone is effective in improving glycemic control when used alone or in combination with other oral agents.37,38 It can also improve glycemic control while reducing required insulin doses among type 2 diabetic patients who were previously on at least 30 U of insulin daily.39

However, clinical enthusiasm for troglitazone has been dampened by its potential to cause severe idiosyncratic hepatocellular injury that can be fatal, the need for regular monitoring of liver function tests, some reports of weight gain, and its relatively high cost.40 At this time, troglitazone is generally used in addition to a sulfonylurea or insulin and its place in the care older diabetic patients remains to be established.

Meglitinides. Repaglinide (Prandin) is a new oral glucose-lowering agent currently approved for monotherapy or combination use with metformin for type 2 diabetes.41 Similar to sulfonylureas, its primary action is to increase pancreatic insulin secretion, but it appears to act at a separate site on the pancreatic Beta.gif (968 bytes)-cell and has a much shorter, quicker action than sulfonylurea agents.

Like sulfonylureas, repaglinide can cause serious hypoglycemia and is associated with increased insulin levels and weight gain. It may be advantageous for older patients with erratic meal schedules or those prone to hypoglycemia between meals with second-generation sulfonylureas (though its cost is substantially higher than sulfonylureas).

Insulin. Older patients being treated pharmacologically for diabetes generally follow the same treatment algorithm as younger patients, moving from monotherapy to combination therapy as needed to maintain glycemic control. If combination therapy with oral agents fails to achieve desired glycemic goals, treatment generally should be changed to daily insulin injections.

Although insulin treatment regimens in the elderly are similar to those in the young, the higher prevalence of poor vision, arthritis, and factors that increase the risks of and for hypoglycemia (Table 2) may be problematic for many older diabetic patients. Devices to aid in accurate insulin dose withdrawal and the use of premixed insulins or predrawn syringes may be necessary to facilitate insulin therapy.

Other Components of Comprehensive Care
Although this review has focused on glycemic control and addressing macro-vascular risk factors, a number of other aspects of care are vital in the management of older diabetic patients. These include regular attention to foot care with routine inspection by patients and physicians and annual sensory testing with a nylon monofilament to detect the presence of peripheral neuropathy. Dilated retinal exam by an eye care specialist should be performed annually or more frequently, as needed. Education regarding diet and exercise, with emphasis on promoting increased activity, and efforts to enhance self-management skills should be routinely provided in the care of all diabetic patients.

Appropriate attention to these issues, combined with the careful management of glycemic control and macrovascular risk factors, has the potential to improve quality of life and increase life expectancy in older patients with type 2 diabetes.


1National Diabetes Data Group: Diabetes in America. 2nd ed. Harris M, Ed. Bethesda, Md., National Institutes of Health, 1995.

2American Diabetes Association: Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 20:1183-97, 1997.

3Abrass IB, Schwartz RS: Special presentation of endocrine disease in the elderly. In Current Practice of Medicine. Vol 1, No. 2. Fitzgerald FT, Ed. Philadelphia, Pa., Current Medicine, Inc., 1998, p. 415-18.

4Van Nostrand JF, Furner SE, Suzman R (Eds.): Health data on older Americans: United States, 1992. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 3(27), 1993

5Turner R, Cull C, Holman R: UK Prospective Diabetes Study 17: a nine-year update of a randomized controlled trial on the effect of improved metabolic control on complications in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 124:136-45, 1996.

6Geiss LS, Herman WH, Smith PJ: Mortality in non-insulin-dependent diabetes. In Diabetes in America. 2nd ed. Harris M, Ed. Bethesda, Md., National Institutes of Health, 1995, p. 233-55.

7Haffner SM, Lehto S, Ronnemaa T, Pyorala K, Laasko M: Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 339:229-34, 1998.

8Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE: Relation of glycemic control to diabetic microvascular complications in diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 124:90-96, 1996.

9Vijan S, Hofer TP, Hayward RA: Estimated benefits of glycemic control in microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes. Ann Intern Med 127:788-95, 1997.

10UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group: Intensive blood glucose control with sulfonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 352:837-53, 1998.

11Testa MA, Simonson DC: Health economic benefits and quality of life during improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA 280:1490-96, 1998.

12Nathan DM, Meigs J, Singer DE: The epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus: how sweet it is ... or is it? Lancet 350 (Suppl. 1):4-9, 1997.

13Purnell JQ, Hokanson JE, Marcovina SM, Steffes M, Cleary P, Brunzell J: Effects of excessive weight gain with intensive therapy of type I diabetes on lipid levels and blood pressure. JAMA 280:140-46, 1998.

14The DCCT Research Group: The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 329:977-86, 1993.

15UKPDS Group: Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). Lancet 352:854-65, 1998.

16Vijan S, Stevens DL, Herman WH, Funnell MM, Standiford CJ: Screening, prevention, counseling, and treatment for the complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Gen Intern Med 12:567-80, 1997.

17UKPDS Group: Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 317:703-13, 1998.

18The Fifth Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med 153:154-83, 1993.

19UKPDS Group: Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 39. BMJ 317:713-20, 1998.

20Mogensen CE: Combined high blood pressure and glucose in type 2 diabetes: double jeopardy. BMJ 317:693-94, 1998.

21Curb JD, Pressel SL, Cutler JA, Savage P, Applegate W, Black H, Camel G, Davis B, Frost P, Gonzalez N, Guthrie G, Oberman A, Rutan G, Stamler J: Effect of diuretic-based antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease risk in older diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension. JAMA 276:1886-92, 1996.

22Corti M, Guralnik JM, Salive ME, Harris T, Ferrucci L, Glynn R, Havlik R: Clarifying the direct relation between total cholesterol levels and death from coronary heart disease in older persons. Ann Intern Med 126:753-60, 1997.

23Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S, Whitney E, Shapiro D, Beere P, Langendorfer A, Stein E, Kruyer W, Gotto A: Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels. JAMA 279:1615-22, 1998.

24Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA, Rouleau J, Rutherford J, Cole T, Brown L, Warnica J, Arnold J, Won C, Davis B, Braunwald E: The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med 335:1001-1009, 1996.

25Pyorala K, Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Faergaman O, Olsson A, Thorgeirsson G: Cholesterol lowering with simvastatin improves prognosis of diabetic patients with coronary heart disease: a subgroup analysis of the 4S trial. Diabetes Care 20:614-20, 1997.

26Summary of the 2nd report of the NCEP expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult Treatment Panel II). JAMA 269:3015-22, 1993.

27Gottlieb SS, McCarter RJ, Vogel RA: Effect of Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blockade on mortality among high-risk and low-risk patients after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 339:489-97, 1998.

28Kendall MJ, Lynch KP, Hjalmarson A, Kjekshus J: Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blockers and sudden cardiac death. Ann Intern Med 123:358-67, 1995.

29Krumholz HM, Radford MJ, Wang Y, Chen J, Heiat A, Marciniak T: National use and effectiveness of Beta.gif (968 bytes)-blockers for the treatment of elderly patients after acute MI. JAMA 280:623-29, 1998.

30Shorr RI, Ray WA, Daugherty J, Griffin M: Antihypertensives and the risk of serious hypoglycemia in older persons using insulin or sulfonylureas. JAMA 278:40-43, 1997.

31Katzel LI, Bleecker ER, Colman EG, Rogus E, Sorkin J, Goldberg A: Effects of weight loss vs. aerobic exercise training on risk factors for coronary disease in healthy, obese, middle-aged men and women. JAMA 274:1915-21, 1995.

32Helmrich SP, Ragland DR, Leung RW, Paffenbarger RS: Physical activity and reduced occurrence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 325:147-52, 1991.

33Bailey CJ, Turner RC: Drug therapy: metformin. N Engl J Med 334:574-79, 1996.

34Shorr RI, Ray WA, Daugherty JR, Griffin MR: Individual sulfonylureas and serious hypoglycemia in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 44:751-55, 1996.

35Burge MR, Schmitz-Fiorentino K, Fischette C, Qualla C, Schade D: A prospective trial of risk factors for sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus. JAMA 279:137-43, 1998.

36Chiasson JL, Josse RG, Hunt JA, Palmason C, Rodger N, Ross S, Ryan E, Tan M, Wolever T: The efficacy of acarbose in the treatment of patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 121:928-35, 1994.

37Maggs DG, Buchanan TA, Burant CF, Cline G, Gumbiner B, Hsueh W, Inzucchi S, Kelley D, Nolan J, Olefsky J, Polonsky K, Silver D, Valiguett Y, Shulman G: Metabolic effects of troglitazone monotherapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 128:176-85, 1998.

38Inzucchi SE, Maggs DG, Spollett GR, Page S, Rife F, Walton V, Shulman G: Efficacy and metabolic effects of metformin and troglitazone in type II diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 338:867-72, 1998.

39Schwartz S, Raskin P, Fonseca V, Graveline J: Effect of troglitazone in insulin-treated patients with type II diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 338:861-66, 1998.

40Imura H: A novel antidiabetic drug, troglitazone–reason for hope and concern. N Engl J Med 338:908-909, 1998.

41Repaglinide for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Med Lett 40:55-56, 1998.


Dr. Wallace is the recipient of an NIA Academic Award (K08/AG00615) and is affiliated with the Clinical Nutrition Research Unit at the University of Washington (NIH, NID, P30DK35816).

Jeffrey I. Wallace, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor in the University of Washington Department of Medicine, Division of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, in Seattle. 

Copyright 1999 American Diabetes Association
Updated 1/99
For ADA Related Issues contact

For Technical Issues contact