This retrospective cohort survey conducted at one medical clinic in Japan revealed the effectiveness of intensive insulin therapy for elderly Japanese patients (≥65 years) with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, demonstrating an improvement in glycemic control 1 year after initiation of insulin therapy that was comparable to that observed in non-elderly patients (<65 years). In addition, severe hypoglycemic events were avoided in both age groups by comprehensive management using SMBG. This study suggests the potential for safely improving poor glycemic control among elderly patients as well as non-elderly patients by initiating insulin therapy. However, 37.8% of non-elderly and 19.2% of elderly still experienced poor glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 8.0%) after 1 year, and obesity was associated with poor glycemic control at 12 months in this study.
Although treatment strategies for elderly patients with diabetes mellitus are controversial, several intervention studies have reported the effectiveness of intensive treatment for elderly patients with diabetes [14, 15]. A 6-year interventional observational study conducted in Japan reported an association between high HbA1c levels and the development of retinopathy, and that intensive control of diabetes mellitus led to favorable outcomes [14]. A study in Nagoya, Japan, found no increase in mortality among well-controlled elderly patients with diabetes compared to the general population after matching for age and sex [15]. Thus, better management of diabetes might prevent and/or delay diabetic complications or improve mortality, despite minimal accumulated evidence in the elderly.
In general practice, improving uncontrolled diabetes in elderly patients is sometimes more difficult than in non-elderly patients because of age-related deterioration in glucose tolerance and a reduction in endogenous insulin secretion, and therefore treatment is likely to require insulin initiation in elderly patients with uncontrolled glycemic control [16]. The Kumamoto study, a randomized controlled trial evaluating intervention with insulin therapy among 110 Japanese patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, revealed the effectiveness of intensive treatment for primary and secondary prevention of diabetic complications, and showed that treatment with multiple insulin injections per day was more beneficial for total medical costs at 10 years of follow-up compared to a conventional insulin injection therapy [17, 18]. Although these studies were conducted in middle-aged patients (mean age, 48.2 years in multiple injection therapy group), the results may be applicable to elderly patients. Thus, adequate insulin initiation and maintaining safe insulin therapy is necessary for improving uncontrolled diabetes, and have a beneficial effect on healthcare expenditure.
Several reports have brought attention to excessively strict glycemic control strategies. The Diabetes and Aging Study, a large-scale retrospective cohort study of 71,092 patients in the United States with diabetes mellitus, reported that mortality had a U-shaped relationship with HbA1c, with an increased risk of all-cause mortality associated with HbA1c levels less than 6% [19]. In the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study, a prospective study conducted in the United States, insulin users with HbA1c levels ≤6.0% had a 4.36-fold higher risk of falls compared to those individuals with HbA1c levels ≥8.0% [8]. In addition to the above-mentioned influences on mortality and morbidity, hypoglycemic events can trigger a series of complications [8, 20]. In a large-scale cohort study in the United States, patients with diabetes (mean age, 64.0 years) who experienced hypoglycemic events were 1.79 times more likely to experience an acute cardiovascular events than those who did not experience hypoglycemic events; similar results were also reported for patients aged ≥65 years compared to those for the entire population (odds ratio = 1.78) [20]. In addition, the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, which was a randomized trial among diabetic patients aged 40–79 years with cardiovascular histories or their risks, showed that the risk of severe hypoglycemia in an intensive glycemic control group (HbA1c goal < 6%) was more than threefold higher than in a standard glycemic control group (HbA1c goal 7.0–7.9%); furthermore, the mortality risk was 1.22-fold higher in the intensive compared to the standard glycemic control group [7]. Therefore, avoidance of hypoglycemia is necessary for better glycemic control and to reduce mortality and morbidity. To avoid hypoglycemia in our study, we used SMBG, according to Japanese Diabetes Management Guidelines [21], which involved regularly checking patient HbA1c levels and SMBG records, and modifying their treatment accordingly. No severe hypoglycemic events were observed in either the elderly or non-elderly groups during the 1-year follow-up period. SMBG may allow patients to evaluate their glucose concentrations and assess their achievement status to target glycemic levels [5, 22]. Therefore, comprehensive management that includes SMBG is a useful strategy for improving awareness and avoiding hypoglycemic events among insulin-treated elderly patients [5, 22]. In addition, the use of long-acting insulin may also avoid the problem of hypoglycemia in elderly patients. The APOLLO study, comparing once-daily basal insulin glargine (long-acting insulin) versus thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro (short-acting insulin) in 418 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 18–75 years, showed that hypoglycemic events were lower in the glargine treatment group than in the insulin lispro group (4.27 vs 19.46 per person) [23]. On this basis it is therefore, important to consider the insulin type when initiating intensive insulin therapy in the elderly. To improve uncontrolled diabetes and prevent severe hypoglycemic events, treatment using insulin therapy can be acceptable as part of the comprehensive management for eligible patients who have the ability to use insulin therapy.
Although glycemic control was safely improved after initiation of insulin therapy in this study, 31.8% of non-elderly and 15.4% of elderly participants still experienced uncontrolled diabetes with HbA1c levels of at least 8%. Obese patients (BMI ≥ 25) were significantly more likely to have uncontrolled diabetes. During the 1-year follow-up period, body weight was significantly higher versus baseline at 12 months among non-elderly participants (66.1 vs 68.8 kg, P < 0.01), but not among elderly participants (62.0 vs 63.2 kg, P = 0.10). It is possible that elderly participants may demonstrate healthier lifestyle behaviors related to avoid weight gain after initiation of insulin therapy [3]. Obesity is a well-known risk factor for poor glycemic control, and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS 24), which was a randomized controlled trial among 4,075 patients aged 25–65 years with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes including obese patients (48.2%), showed that initiating insulin therapy induced more hypoglycemia and weight gain without necessarily providing better glycemic control [24]. Thus, both weight gain and hypoglycemia need to be addressed with adequate nutrition and exercise instruction.
There were several limitations to the present study. First, there may have been selection bias; the present study was conducted at one medical institution specializing in the treatment of diabetes. A large-scale multicenter study is needed to better compare our data to data from other medical settings. Second, this study did not include some important factors, in particular, social support, health behavior and nutrition status. Studies that obtain information regarding health behavior, nutrition status, and other related factors are needed. Third, our sample size was small. Similar to the first limitation, large-scale multicenter studies are required to address this issue. Fourth, differences existed in patient numbers, baseline HbA1c levels, type of insulin and dosage between the non-elderly and elderly patient groups. A large-scale study is required to adjust for these differences. Finally, 1 year is a relatively short study period. As a next step, cohort studies with long study periods (more than 5 years) are needed to assess long-term outcomes including glycemic control, onset of cardiovascular complications, mortality, and morbidity.