Associations of blood pressure with cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in over 2 million older persons with or without diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 45 cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: The impact of blood pressure on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality outcomes in older people with diabetes mellitus (DM) is not well quantified. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies, we aimed to compare the associations of blood pressure levels with cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in older people aged ≥ 65 years with or without DM. METHODS: Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and search of bibliographies to July 2022. Study-specific risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. RESULTS: Forty-five unique observational cohort studies (n = 2305,189 participants) assessing the associations of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) levels with adverse cardiovascular outcomes were included. In the general population, the pooled RRs (95% CIs) of SBP ≥ 140 vs < 140 mmHg and per 10 mmHg increase for composite CVD/MACE were 1.26 (0.96-1.64) and 1.15 (1.08-1.23), respectively. The respective estimates were 1.56 (1.04-2.34) and 1.10 (1.04-1.18) for patients with DM. SBP ≥ 130 vs < 130 mmHg was not associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in both populations. SBP < 120 vs ≥ 120 mmHg was associated with an increased risk of all cause-mortality in the general population (n = 10 studies). DBP ≥ 90 mmHg was associated with an increased risk of some adverse cardiovascular outcomes in both populations. Interaction analyses suggested similar risk of outcomes in both populations. CONCLUSIONS: Observational evidence suggests SBP and DBP confer similar cardiovascular and mortality risk in older adults in the general population and those with DM. A blood pressure target range of > 130/80 to < 140/90 mmHg may be optimal for patients ≥ 65 years with DM, but specific targets may need to be individualised based on patients' unique circumstances. Furthermore, findings do not support stringent blood pressure control in this population group. Definitive RCTs are needed to support these observational findings.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diabetes services: planning for a global recovery.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected certain groups, such as older people (ie, >65 years), minority ethnic populations, and people with specific chronic conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and some respiratory diseases. There is now evidence of not only direct but also indirect adverse effects of COVID-19 in people with diabetes. Recurrent lockdowns and public health measures throughout the pandemic have restricted access to routine diabetes care, limiting new diagnoses, and affecting self-management, routine follow-ups, and access to medications, as well as affecting lifestyle behaviours and emotional wellbeing globally. Pre-pandemic studies have shown that short-term delays in delivery of routine care, even by 12 months, are associated with adverse effects on risk factor control and worse microvascular, macrovascular, and mortality outcomes in people with diabetes. Disruptions within the short-to-medium term due to natural disasters also result in worse diabetes outcomes. However, the true magnitude of the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term outcomes and mortality in people with diabetes is still unclear. Disasters tend to exacerbate existing health disparities; as we recover ambulatory diabetes services in the aftermath of the pandemic, there is an opportunity to prioritise those with the greatest need, and to target resources and interventions aimed at improving outcomes and reducing inequality.

Deintensification in older patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review of approaches, rates and outcomes.

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.