Self-care barriers and facilitators in older adults with T1D during a time of sudden isolation.

Older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have unique challenges and needs. In this mixed-methods study, we explored the impact of isolation during a pandemic on diabetes management and overall quality of life in this population. Older adults (age ≥ 65 years) with T1D receiving care at a tertiary care diabetes center participated in semi-structured interviews during COVID-19 pandemic isolation between June and August 2020. A multi-disciplinary team coded transcripts and conducted thematic analysis. Thirty-four older adults (age 71 ± 5 years, 97% non-Hispanic white, diabetes duration of 38 ± 7 years, A1C of 7.4 ± 0.9% (57.3 ± 10.1 mmol/mol) were recruited. Three themes related to diabetes self-care emerged regarding impact of isolation on: (1) diabetes management and self-care behaviors (how isolation prompted changes in physical activity and dietary habits); (2) emotional stress and anxiety (related to isolation and lack of support system, economic concerns); and (3) concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic (impact on timely medical care and access to information). Our findings identify modifiable barriers and challenges faced by older adults with T1D during isolation. As this population has a higher risk of decline in physical and psychosocial support even during non-pandemic times, clinicians will benefit from understanding these issues to improve care of this population.

Impact of Diabetes Duration on Functional and Clinical Status in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are aging successfully. The impact of diabetes duration on clinical and functional status as people age with T1D is not well known. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of older adults (age ≥65 years) with T1D. RESULTS: We evaluated 165 older adults, mean age 70 ± 10 years. After adjustment for age, sex, and A1C, longer duration of T1D, ≥50 years, was associated with a higher likelihood of depression (odds ratio [OR] 2.8; P = 0.008), hypoglycemia unawareness (OR 2.6; P = 0.01), lower scores on 6-Minute Walk Test (OR 0.99; P = 0.01) and the Physical Component Summary (PCS) of Short Form-36 (SF-36) (OR 0.96; P = 0.02), and greater daily medication use (OR 1.1; P = 0.004) compared with those with duration <50 years. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with T1D, duration of diabetes impacts clinical and functional status, independent of age and glycemic control, and should be considered in development of management strategies for safety and success.

Use of Technology in Older Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Clinical Characteristics and Glycemic Metrics.

Background: The use of diabetes-related technology, both for insulin administration and glucose monitoring, has shown benefits in older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, the characteristics of older adults with T1D and their use of technology in real-world situations are not well documented. Methods: Older adults (age ≥65 years) with T1D, using insulin pump or multiple daily injections (MDI) for insulin administration, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or glucometer (blood glucose monitoring [BGM]) for glucose monitoring were evaluated. Participants wore CGM for 2 weeks, completed surveys, and underwent laboratory evaluation. Results: We evaluated 165 older adults with T1D; mean age 70 ± 10 years, diabetes duration 40 ± 17 years, and A1C 7.4% ± 0.9% (57 ± 10 mmol/mol). For insulin administration, 63 (38%) were using MDI, while 102 (62%) were using pump. Compared to MDI, pump users were less likely to have cognitive dysfunction (49% vs. 65%, P = 0.04) and had lower scores on the hypoglycemia fear survey (P = 0.03). For glucose monitoring, 95 (58%) used CGM, while 70 (42%) used BGM. Compared to BGM, CGM users were more likely to report impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) (P = 0.01), and had lower A1C (P = 0.02). Participants who used any technology (pump or CGM) had lower A1C (P = 0.04, 0.006), less hypoglycemia ≤54 mg/dL (P = 0.0006, <0.0001) and <70 mg/dL (P = 0.0002, 0.0001), and fewer glycemic excursions (coefficient of variation %) (P = 0.0001, <0.0001), while reporting more IAH (P = 0.04, P = 0.006) and diabetes distress (P = 0.02, 0.004). Conclusion: Older adults with T1D who use newer diabetes-related technology had better glycemic control, lower hypoglycemia risk, and fewer glycemic excursions. However, they were more likely to report IAH and diabetes-related distress. Clinical trials.gov NCT03078491.

Usefulness of CGM-Derived Metric, the Glucose Management Indicator, to Assess Glycemic Control in Non-White Individuals With Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between the glucose management indicator (GMI) and HbA1c in non-White individuals with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of continuous glucose monitoring metrics in individuals with diabetes divided by race into non-White and White cohorts. RESULTS: We evaluated 316 individuals (non-White n = 68; White n = 248). Although GMI was not different (7.6 vs. 7.7; P = not significant) between the cohorts, HbA1c was higher in the non-White cohort (8.7% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.004). HbA1c higher than GMI by ≥0.5% was more frequently observed in the non-White cohort (90% vs. 75%; P = 0.02). In the non-White cohort only, duration of hypoglycemia was longer among those with HbA1c higher than GMI by ≥0.5% compared with those with HbA1c and GMI within 0.5%. CONCLUSIONS: A differential relationship between HbA1c and GMI in non-White versus White individuals with diabetes was observed. In non-White individuals, a greater difference between HbA1c and GMI was associated with higher risk of hypoglycemia.