Samuel Seidu1, Setor K Kunutsor2, Pinar Topsever3, Clare E Hambling4, Francesc X Cos5, Kamlesh Khunti1. 1. Diabetes Research Centre, Diabetes & Metabolic Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. 2. Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, NHS Foundation, National Institute for Health Research Bristol, Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK. 5. Diabetes & Metabolic Medicine, Jordi Gol Institute for Research in Primary Care, The Foundation University Institute for Primary Health, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
AIM: To assess deintensification approaches and rates and evaluate the harm and benefits of deintensification with antidiabetic medication and other therapies among older people (≥ 65 years) with type 2 diabetes with or without cardiometabolic conditions. METHODS: We identified relevant studies in a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases to 30 October 2018. Data were extracted on baseline characteristics, details on deintensification and outcomes, and was synthesized using a narrative approach. RESULTS: Ten studies (observational cohorts and interventional studies) with data on 26 558 patients with comorbidities were eligible. Deintensification approaches included complete withdrawal, discontinuation, reducing dosage, conversion, or substitution of at least one medication, but the majority of studies were based on complete withdrawal or discontinuation of antihyperglycaemic medication. Rates of deintensification approaches ranged from 13.4%-75%. The majority of studies reported no deterioration in HbA1c levels, hypoglycaemic episodes, falls or hospitalizations on deintensification. On adverse events and mortality, no significant differences were observed among the comparison groups in the majority of studies. CONCLUSION: Available but limited evidence suggests that the benefits of deintensification outweigh the harm in older people with type 2 diabetes with or without comorbidities. Given the heterogeneity of patients with diabetes, further research is warranted on which deintensification approaches are appropriate and beneficial for each specific patient population.
AIM: To assess deintensification approaches and rates and evaluate the harm and benefits of deintensification with antidiabetic medication and other therapies among older people (≥ 65 years) with type 2 diabetes with or without cardiometabolic conditions. METHODS: We identified relevant studies in a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases to 30 October 2018. Data were extracted on baseline characteristics, details on deintensification and outcomes, and was synthesized using a narrative approach. RESULTS: Ten studies (observational cohorts and interventional studies) with data on 26 558 patients with comorbidities were eligible. Deintensification approaches included complete withdrawal, discontinuation, reducing dosage, conversion, or substitution of at least one medication, but the majority of studies were based on complete withdrawal or discontinuation of antihyperglycaemic medication. Rates of deintensification approaches ranged from 13.4%-75%. The majority of studies reported no deterioration in HbA1c levels, hypoglycaemic episodes, falls or hospitalizations on deintensification. On adverse events and mortality, no significant differences were observed among the comparison groups in the majority of studies. CONCLUSION: Available but limited evidence suggests that the benefits of deintensification outweigh the harm in older people with type 2 diabetes with or without comorbidities. Given the heterogeneity of patients with diabetes, further research is warranted on which deintensification approaches are appropriate and beneficial for each specific patient population.
Authors: Boris Draznin; Vanita R Aroda; George Bakris; Gretchen Benson; Florence M Brown; RaShaye Freeman; Jennifer Green; Elbert Huang; Diana Isaacs; Scott Kahan; Jose Leon; Sarah K Lyons; Anne L Peters; Priya Prahalad; Jane E B Reusch; Deborah Young-Hyman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Joshua D Niznik; Xinhua Zhao; Florentina Slieanu; Maria K Mor; Sherrie L Aspinall; Walid F Gellad; Mary Ersek; Ryan P Hickson; Sydney P Springer; Loren J Schleiden; Joseph T Hanlon; Joshua M Thorpe; Carolyn T Thorpe Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Stijn Crutzen; Gert Baas; Jamila Abou; Tessa van den Born-Bondt; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg; Marcel L Bouvy; Mette Heringa; Katja Taxis; Petra Denig Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Anastasia-Stefania Alexopoulos; Anna R Kahkoska; Virginia Pate; Marie C Bradley; Joshua Niznik; Carolyn Thorpe; Til Stürmer; John Buse Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-11-01
Authors: Edward B Jude; Maciej T Malecki; Ricardo Gomez Huelgas; Martin Prazny; Frank Snoek; Tsvetalina Tankova; Dario Giugliano; Kamlesh Khunti Journal: Diabetes Ther Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 2.945