4.0 Article

Frequent Hypoglycemia Among Elderly Patients With Poor Glycemic Control

Journal

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 171, Issue 4, Pages 362-364

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.539

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. American Diabetes Association [1-07-CR-40]
  2. Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program of the Office of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research [W81XWH-07-1-0282]
  3. Graetz Foundation
  4. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [P30 NIDDK36836, R01 NIDDK060115]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Episodes of hypoglycemia are particularly dangerous in the older population. To reduce the risk of hypoglycemia, relaxation of the standard hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) goals has been proposed for frail elderly patients. However, the risk of hypoglycemia in this population with higher HbA(1c) levels is unknown. Methods: Patients 69 years or older with HbA(1C) values of 8% or greater were evaluated with blinded continuous glucose monitoring for 3 days. Results: Forty adults (mean [SD] age, 75 [5] years; HbA1C value, 9.3% [1.3%]; diabetes duration, 22 [14] years; 28 patients [70%] with type 2 diabetes mellitus; and 37 [93%] using insulin) were evaluated. Twenty-six patients (65%) experienced 1 or more episodes of hypoglycemia (glucose level < 70 mg/dL). Among these, 12 (46%) experienced a glucose level below 50 mg/dL and 19 (73%), a level below 60 mg/dL. The average number of episodes was 4; average duration, 46 minutes. Eighteen patients (69%) had at least 1 nocturnal episode (10 PM to 6 AM). Of the total of 102 hypoglycemic episodes, 95 (93%) were unrecognized by finger-stick glucose measurements performed 4 times a day or by symptoms. Conclusions: Hypoglycemic episodes are common in older adults with poor glycemic control. Raising HbA(1C) goals may not be adequate to prevent hypoglycemia in this population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available