J Korean Med Sci.  2021 Jul;36(27):e190. 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e190.

Daytime Glycemic Variability and Frailty in Older Patients with Diabetes: a Pilot Study Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring

• Chung SM
• Lee YH
• Kim CO
• Lee JY
• Jin SM
• Yoo SH
• Moon JS
• Kim KJ

• KMID: 2518353
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e190

Abstract

We investigated the relationship between glucose variability and frailty. Forty-eight type 2 diabetic patients aged ≥ 65 years were enrolled. The FRAIL scale was used for frailty assessment, and participants were classified into ‘healthy & pre-frail’ (n = 24) and ‘frail’ (n = 24) groups. A continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system was used for a mean of 6.9 days and standardized CGM metrics were analyzed: mean glucose, glucose management indicator (GMI), coefficient of variation, and time in range, time above range (TAR), and time below range. The demographics did not differ between groups. However, among the CGM metrics, mean glucose, GMI, and TAR in the postprandial periods were higher in the frail group (all P < 0.05). After multivariate adjustments, the post-lunch TAR (OR = 1.12, P = 0.019) affected the prevalence of frailty. Higher glucose variability with marked daytime postprandial hyperglycemia is significantly associated with frailty in older patients with diabetes.

Keyword

Continuous Glucose Monitoring; Glucose Variability; Time In Range; Frailty; Geriatrics

Reference

1. Suh S, Kim JH. Glycemic variability: how do we measure it and why is it important? Diabetes Metab J. 2015; 39(4):273–282. PMID: 26301188.

2. Kalyani RR, Tian J, Xue QL, Walston J, Cappola AR, Fried LP, et al. Hyperglycemia and incidence of frailty and lower extremity mobility limitations in older women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012; 60(9):1701–1707. PMID: 22882211.

3. Schernthaner G, Schernthaner-Reiter MH. Diabetes in the older patient: heterogeneity requires individualisation of therapeutic strategies. Diabetologia. 2018; 61(7):1503–1516. PMID: 29417185.

4. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 2013; 381(9868):752–762. PMID: 23395245.

5. Blaum CS, Xue QL, Tian J, Semba RD, Fried LP, Walston J. Is hyperglycemia associated with frailty status in older women? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009; 57(5):840–847. PMID: 19484839.

6. Shimokata H, Muller DC, Fleg JL, Sorkin J, Ziemba AW, Andres R. Age as independent determinant of glucose tolerance. Diabetes. 1991; 40(1):44–51.

7. Weiss CO, Cappola AR, Varadhan R, Fried LP. Resting metabolic rate in old-old women with and without frailty: variability and estimation of energy requirements. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012; 60(9):1695–1700. PMID: 22985142.

8. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, Amiel SA, Beck R, Biester T, et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42(8):1593–1603. PMID: 31177185.

9. Woo J, Yu R, Wong M, Yeung F, Wong M, Lum C. Frailty screening in the community using the FRAIL scale. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015; 16(5):412–419. PMID: 25732832.

10. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35(8):1381–1395. PMID: 12900694.

11. Yoo JH, Kim JH. Time in range from continuous glucose monitoring: a novel metric for glycemic control. Diabetes Metab J. 2020; 44(6):828–839. PMID: 33389957.

12. Lu J, Ma X, Zhou J, Zhang L, Mo Y, Ying L, et al. Association of time in range, as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring, with diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41(11):2370–2376. PMID: 30201847.

13. Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Riddlesworth TD, Kollman C, Li Z, Brown AS, et al. Validation of time in range as an outcome measure for diabetes clinical trials. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42(3):400–405. PMID: 30352896.

14. Li F, Zhang Y, Li H, Lu J, Jiang L, Vigersky RA, et al. TIR generated by continuous glucose monitoring is associated with peripheral nerve function in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020; 166:108289. PMID: 32615278.

15. Yoo JH, Choi MS, Ahn J, Park SW, Kim Y, Hur KY, et al. Association between continuous glucose monitoring-derived time in range, other core metrics, and albuminuria in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020; 22(10):768–776. PMID: 32167394.

16. Lu J, Ma X, Shen Y, Wu Q, Wang R, Zhang L, et al. Time in range is associated with carotid intima-media thickness in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020; 22(2):72–78. PMID: 31524497.

17. Lu J, Wang C, Shen Y, Chen L, Zhang L, Cai J, et al. Time in range in relation to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2021; 44(2):549–555. PMID: 33097560.

18. Monnier L, Colette C, Wojtusciszyn A, Dejager S, Renard E, Molinari N, et al. Toward defining the threshold between low and high glucose variability in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2017; 40(7):832–838. PMID: 28039172.

19. Vigersky RA, McMahon C. The relationship of hemoglobin A1C to time-in-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019; 21(2):81–85. PMID: 30575414.

20. Bergenstal RM, Beck RW, Close KL, Grunberger G, Sacks DB, Kowalski A, et al. Glucose management indicator (GMI): a new term for estimating A1C from continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41(11):2275–2280. PMID: 30224348.

21. Fried LP. Interventions for human frailty: physical activity as a model. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2016; 6(6):a025916. PMID: 27143701.

22. American Diabetes Association. 12. Older adults: standards of medical care in diabetes-2020. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43(Suppl 1):S152–S162. PMID: 31862755.