The increasing prevalence of older adults with diabetes has become a major social burden. Diabetes, frailty, and cognitive dysfunction are closely related to the mechanisms of aging. Insulin resistance, arteriosclerosis, chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction may be common mechanisms shared by frailty and cognitive impairment. Hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, obesity, vascular factors, physical inactivity, and malnutrition are important risk factors for cognitive impairment and frailty in older adults with diabetes. The impact of nutrients on health outcomes varies with age; thus, shifting diet therapy strategies from the treatment of obesity/metabolic syndrome to frailty prevention may be necessary in patients with diabetes who are over 75 years of age, have frailty or sarcopenia, and experience malnutrition. For the prevention of frailty, optimal energy intake, sufficient protein and vitamin intake, and healthy dietary patterns should be recommended. The treatment of diabetes after middle age should include the awareness of proper glycemic control aimed at extending healthy life expectancy with proper nutrition, exercise, and social connectivity. Nutritional therapy in combination with exercise, optimal glycemic and metabolic control, and social participation/support for frailty prevention can extend healthy life expectancy and maintain quality of life in older adults with diabetes mellitus.

Although frailty and cognitive impairment are critical risk factors for disability and mortality in the general population of older inhabitants, the prevalence and incidence of these factors in individuals treated in the specialty outpatient clinics are unknown. We recently established a frailty clinic for comprehensive assessments of conditions such as frailty, sarcopenia, and cognition, and planned 3-year prospective observational study to identify the risk factors for progression of these aging-related statuses. To date, we recruited 323 patients who revealed symptoms suggestive of frailty mainly from a specialty outpatient clinic of cardiology and diabetes. Frailty status was diagnosed by the modified Cardiovascular Health Study (mCHS) criteria and some other scales. Cognitive function was assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J), and some other modalities. Sarcopenia was defined by the criteria of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS). In this report, we outlined our frailty clinic and analyzed the background characteristics of the subjects. Most patients reported hypertension (78%), diabetes mellitus (57%), or dyslipidemia (63%), and cardiovascular disease and probable heart failure also had a higher prevalence. The prevalence of frailty diagnosed according to the mCHS criteria, cognitive impairment defined by MMSE (≤27) and MoCA-J (≤25), and of AWGS-defined sarcopenia were 24, 41, and 84, and 31%, respectively. The prevalence of frailty and cognitive impairment increased with aging, whereas the increase in sarcopenia prevalence plateaued after the age of 80 years. No significant differences were observed in the prevalence of frailty, cognitive impairment, and sarcopenia between the groups with and without diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or dyslipidemia with a few exceptions, presumably due to the high-risk subjects who had multiple cardiovascular comorbidities. A majority of the frail and sarcopenic patients revealed cognitive impairment, whereas the frequency of suspected dementia among these patients were both approximately 20%. We found a high prevalence of frailty, cognitive impairment, and sarcopenia in patients with cardiometabolic disease in our frailty clinic. Comprehensive assessment of the high-risk patients could be useful to identify the risk factors for progression of frailty and cognitive decline.

Context: Many guidelines recommend that patients with type 2 diabetes should reduce their dietary sodium intake. However, the relationship between dietary sodium intake and incidence of diabetic complications in patients with type 2 diabetes has not been explored. Objective: Our objective was to investigate the relationship between dietary sodium intake and incidence of diabetes complications. Participants: The study was of a nationwide cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes aged 40 to 70 years with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥6.5%. Main Outcome Measures: After excluding nonresponders to a dietary survey, 1588 patients were analyzed. Baseline dietary intake was assessed by the Food Frequency Questionnaire based on food groups. Primary outcomes were times to cardiovascular disease (CVD), overt nephropathy, diabetic retinopathy, and all-cause mortality. Results: Mean daily dietary sodium intake in quartiles ranged from 2.8 to 5.9 g. After adjustment for confounders, hazard ratios for CVD in patients in the second, third, and fourth quartiles of sodium intake compared with the first quartile were 1.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.98–2.94), 1.47 (0.82–2.62), and 2.07 (1.21–3.90), respectively (trend P < .01). In addition, among patients who had HbA1c ≥9.0%, the hazard ratio for CVD in patients in the top vs bottom quartile of sodium intake was dramatically elevated compared with patients with HbA1c <9.0% (1.16 [0.56–2.39] and 9.91 [2.66–36.87], interaction P < .01). Overt nephropathy, diabetic retinopathy, and all-cause mortality were not significantly associated with sodium intake. Conclusions: Findings suggested that high dietary sodium intake is associated with elevated incidence of CVD in patients with type 2 diabetes and that there is a synergistic effect between HbA1c values and dietary sodium intake for the development of CVD.

Aim:  To evaluate long‐term, multiple risk factor intervention on physical, psychological and mental prognosis, and development of complications and cardiovascular disease in elderly type 2 diabetes patients.Methods:  Our randomized, controlled, multicenter, prospective intervention trial included 1173 elderly type 2 diabetes patients who were enrolled from 39 Japanese institutions and randomized to an intensive or conservative treatment group. Glycemic control, dyslipidemia, hypertension, obesity, diabetic complications and atherosclerotic disease were measured annually. Instrumental activity of daily living, cognitive impairment, depressive symptoms and diabetes burden were assessed at baseline and 3 years.Results:  There was no significant difference in clinical or cognitive parameters at baseline between the two groups. The prevalence of low activities of daily living, depressive symptoms and cognitive impairment was 13%, 28% and 4%, respectively, and was similar in the two groups. A small, but significant difference in HbA1c between the two groups was observed at 1 year after the start of intervention (7.9% vs 8.1%, P < 0.05), although this significant difference was not observed after the second year. With the exception of coronary revascularization, there was no significant difference in fatal or non‐fatal events between the two groups. Composite events were also similar in the two groups.Conclusions:  This study showed no significant differences in fatal or non‐fatal events between intensive and conventional treatment. The present study might clarify whether treatment of risk factors influences function and quality of life in elderly diabetic patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2012; 12 (Suppl. 1): 7–17.