Rates of population ageing are unprecedented and this, combined with the progressive urbanization of lifestyles, has led to a dramatic shift in the epidemiology of diabetes towards old age, particularly to those aged 60–79 years. Both ageing and diabetes are recognized as important risk factors for the development of functional decline and disability. In addition, diabetes is associated with a high economic, social and health burden. Traditional macrovascular and microvascular complications of diabetes appear to account for less than half of the diabetes‐related disability observed in older people. Despite this, older adults are under‐represented in clinical trials. Guidelines from organizations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, and the American Diabetes Association acknowledge the need for individualized care, but the glycaemic targets that are suggested to constitute good control [HbA_1c53–59 mmol/mol (7–7.5%)] are too tight for frail older individuals. We present a framework for the assessment of older adults and guidelines for the management of this population according to their frailty status, with the intention of reducing complications and improving quality of life for these people.

Background: Differentiating between type 1 and type 2 diabetes is fundamental to ensuring appropriate management of patients, but can be challenging, especially when treating with insulin. The 2010 UK Practical Classification Guidelines for Diabetes were developed to help make the differentiation.Aim: To assess diagnostic accuracy of the UK guidelines against ‘gold standard’ definitions of type 1 and type 2 diabetes based on measured C-peptide levels.Design and setting: In total, 601 adults with insulin-treated diabetes and diabetes duration ≥5 years were recruited in Devon, Northamptonshire, and Leicestershire.Method: Baseline information and home urine sample were collected. Urinary C-peptide creatinine ratio (UCPCR) measures endogenous insulin production. Gold standard type 1 diabetes was defined as continuous insulin treatment within 3 years of diagnosis and absolute insulin deficiency (UCPCR<0.2 nmol/mmol ≥5 years post-diagnosis); all others classed as having type 2 diabetes. Diagnostic performance of the clinical criteria was assessed and other criteria explored using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.Results: UK guidelines correctly classified 86% of participants. Most misclassifications occurred in patients classed as having type 1 diabetes who had significant endogenous insulin levels (57 out of 601; 9%); most in those diagnosed ≥35 years and treated with insulin from diagnosis, where 37 out of 66 (56%) were misclassified. Time to insulin and age at diagnosis performed best in predicting long-term endogenous insulin production (ROC AUC = 0.904 and 0.871); BMI was a less strong predictor of diabetes type (AUC = 0.824).Conclusion: Current UK guidelines provide a pragmatic clinical approach to classification reflecting long-term endogenous insulin production; caution is needed in older patients commencing insulin from diagnosis, where misclassification rates are increased.

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this study was to determine whether random non-fasting C-peptide (rCP) measurement can be used to assess hypoglycaemia risk in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. Methods We compared continuous glucose monitoring-assessed SD of blood glucose and hypoglycaemia duration in 17 patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and severe insulin deficiency (rCP < 200 pmol/l) and 17 matched insulin-treated control patients with type 2 diabetes but who had preserved endogenous insulin (rCP > 600 pmol/l). We then assessed the relationship between rCP and questionnaire-based measures of hypoglycaemia in 256 patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and a comparison group of 209 individuals with type 1 diabetes. Results Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-assessed glucose variability and hypoglycaemia was greater in individuals with rCP < 200 pmol/l despite similar mean glucose. In those with low vs high C-peptide, SD of glucose was 4.2 (95% CI 3.7, 4.6) vs 3.0 (2.6, 3.4) mmol/l (p < 0.001). In the low-C-peptide vs high-C-peptide group, the proportion of individuals experiencing sustained hypoglycaemia ≤ 4 mmol/l was 94% vs 41% (p < 0.001), the mean rate of hypoglycaemia was 5.5 (4.4, 6.7) vs 2.1 (1.4, 2.9) episodes per person per week (p = 0.004) and the mean duration was 630 (619, 643) vs 223 (216, 230) min per person per week (p = 0.01). Hypoglycaemia ≤ 3 mmol/l was infrequent in individuals with preserved C-peptide (1.8 [1.2, 2.6] episodes per person per week vs 0.4 [0.1, 0.8] episodes per person per week for low vs high C-peptide, p = 0.04) and only occurred at night. In a population-based cohort with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, self-reported hypoglycaemia was twice as frequent in those with rCP < 200 pmol/l (OR 2.0, p < 0.001) and the rate of episodes resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure was five times higher (OR 5.0, p = 0.001). The relationship between self-reported hypoglycaemia and C-peptide was similar in individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Conclusions/interpretation Low rCP is associated with increased glucose variability and hypoglycaemia in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and represents a practical, stable and inexpensive biomarker for assessment of hypoglycaemia risk.

We assessed if patients with known hypoglycaemia present on other occasions with non-specific symptoms associated with (but not diagnosed as) hypoglycaemia, potentially representing missed hypoglycaemia. 335 primary care records (5/2/12-4/2/13) from patients aged >65 (79 on insulin, 85 on sulphonylureas, 121 on metformin only, 50 without diabetes) were assessed for hypoglycaemia episodes and consultations with non-specific symptoms, "hypo clues". 27/79(34%) insulin-treated patients had >1 documented hypoglycaemia episode, compared to 4/85(5%) sulphonylurea-treated patients, 2/121(2%) metformin-only treated patients, and none without diabetes, p65 years. In insulin-treated patients at high hypoglycaemia risk, nausea, falls and unsteadiness should prompt consideration of hypoglycaemia.