open access

Ahead of print
Original paper
Published online: 2021-03-22
Submitted: 2021-01-29
Accepted: 2021-03-02
Get Citation

Prevalence and socioeconomic predictors of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes in oldest-old and younger Caucasian seniors: results from the PolSenior study

Monika Puzianowska-Kuźnicka, Joanna Januszkiewicz-Caulier, Alina Kuryłowicz, Małgorzata Mossakowska, Tomasz Zdrojewski, Aleksandra Szybalska, Anna Skalska, Jerzy Chudek, Edward Franek
DOI: 10.5603/EP.a2021.0029
·
Pubmed: 33749811

open access

Ahead of print
Original Paper
Published online: 2021-03-22
Submitted: 2021-01-29
Accepted: 2021-03-02

Abstract

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes is one of the most common diseases in the aging population; however, data concerning correlates of diabetes in age-advanced individuals are limited. The study aimed to identify the socioeconomic correlates of diabetes in representative groups of oldest-old (≥ 85 years) and younger (65 to 84 years) Polish Caucasian seniors.

Material and methods: PolSenior is a multicentre, population-based study conducted in Poland. Fasting plasma glucose levels and data from detailed medical questionnaires were obtained from 2128 male and 1961 female study participants aged ≥ 65 years. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify significant socioeconomic risk factors for diabetes and undiagnosed diabetes.

Results: The overall prevalence of diabetes in the study group was 21.9% (24.0% in women vs. 19.9% in men, p = 0.002), with an estimated weighted prevalence for all older Poles of 23.1%. Nearly one-fifth of cases were previously undiagnosed. Diabetes was more common in the younger elderly (65–84 years) than in the oldest-old (≥ 85 years) (23.4% vs. 18.6%, p < 0.001). The frequency of diabetes was higher in women than in men (24.0% vs. 19.9%, p < 0.002); however, men remained undiagnosed more commonly than women (4.7% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.029). The frequency of diabetes was higher among urban than rural dwellers (23% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.048). It was also related to marital status in women (p = 0.036) and occupation in men (p = 0.015). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the independent risk factors for diabetes were body mass index (BMI) and marital status in women, while in men it was solely BMI. Undiagnosed diabetes was more frequent among rural than city dwellers (4.8% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.03). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only BMI and place of residence remained significant risk factors for being undiagnosed.

Conclusions: The prevalence of diabetes in the ≥ 65-year-old population exceeds 20% but is lower in the oldest-old than in the younger elderly and is modified by socioeconomic factors. Many elderly individuals remain undiagnosed and do not benefit from the currently available therapy.

Abstract

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes is one of the most common diseases in the aging population; however, data concerning correlates of diabetes in age-advanced individuals are limited. The study aimed to identify the socioeconomic correlates of diabetes in representative groups of oldest-old (≥ 85 years) and younger (65 to 84 years) Polish Caucasian seniors.

Material and methods: PolSenior is a multicentre, population-based study conducted in Poland. Fasting plasma glucose levels and data from detailed medical questionnaires were obtained from 2128 male and 1961 female study participants aged ≥ 65 years. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify significant socioeconomic risk factors for diabetes and undiagnosed diabetes.

Results: The overall prevalence of diabetes in the study group was 21.9% (24.0% in women vs. 19.9% in men, p = 0.002), with an estimated weighted prevalence for all older Poles of 23.1%. Nearly one-fifth of cases were previously undiagnosed. Diabetes was more common in the younger elderly (65–84 years) than in the oldest-old (≥ 85 years) (23.4% vs. 18.6%, p < 0.001). The frequency of diabetes was higher in women than in men (24.0% vs. 19.9%, p < 0.002); however, men remained undiagnosed more commonly than women (4.7% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.029). The frequency of diabetes was higher among urban than rural dwellers (23% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.048). It was also related to marital status in women (p = 0.036) and occupation in men (p = 0.015). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the independent risk factors for diabetes were body mass index (BMI) and marital status in women, while in men it was solely BMI. Undiagnosed diabetes was more frequent among rural than city dwellers (4.8% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.03). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only BMI and place of residence remained significant risk factors for being undiagnosed.

Conclusions: The prevalence of diabetes in the ≥ 65-year-old population exceeds 20% but is lower in the oldest-old than in the younger elderly and is modified by socioeconomic factors. Many elderly individuals remain undiagnosed and do not benefit from the currently available therapy.

Get Citation

Keywords

diabetes; undiagnosed diabetes; elderly; socioeconomic factors; socioeconomic inequity

About this article
Title

Prevalence and socioeconomic predictors of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes in oldest-old and younger Caucasian seniors: results from the PolSenior study

Journal

Endokrynologia Polska

Issue

Ahead of print

Article type

Original paper

Published online

2021-03-22

DOI

10.5603/EP.a2021.0029

Pubmed

33749811

Keywords

diabetes
undiagnosed diabetes
elderly
socioeconomic factors
socioeconomic inequity

Authors

Monika Puzianowska-Kuźnicka
Joanna Januszkiewicz-Caulier
Alina Kuryłowicz
Małgorzata Mossakowska
Tomasz Zdrojewski
Aleksandra Szybalska
Anna Skalska
Jerzy Chudek
Edward Franek

References (32)
  1. Guariguata L, Whiting DR, Hambleton I, et al. Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2013 and projections for 2035. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014; 103(2): 137–149.
  2. nternational Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 9th edition 2019. Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation, 2019. http://www.diabetesatlas.org (January 2021).
  3. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations. World population prospects: The 2015 revision. New York, 2015. https://population.un.org/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf.
  4. Marullo L, El-Sayed Moustafa JS, Prokopenko I. Insights into the genetic susceptibility to type 2 diabetes from genome-wide association studies of glycaemic traits. Curr Diab Rep. 2014; 14(11): 551.
  5. Grarup N, Sandholt CH, Hansen T, et al. Genetic susceptibility to type 2 diabetes and obesity: from genome-wide association studies to rare variants and beyond. Diabetologia. 2014; 57(8): 1528–1541.
  6. Nathan DM. Diabetes: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment. JAMA. 2015; 314(10): 1052–1062.
  7. Imamura F, O'Connor L, Ye Z, et al. Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction. BMJ. 2015; 351(8): h3576–504.
  8. Betteridge DJ, Carmena R. The diabetogenic action of statins - mechanisms and clinical implications. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2016; 12(2): 99–110.
  9. Leon BM, Maddox TM. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease: Epidemiology, biological mechanisms, treatment recommendations and future research. World J Diabetes. 2015; 6(13): 1246–1258.
  10. Chatterjee S, Peters SAE, Woodward M, et al. Type 2 Diabetes as a Risk Factor for Dementia in Women Compared With Men: A Pooled Analysis of 2.3 Million People Comprising More Than 100,000 Cases of Dementia. Diabetes Care. 2016; 39(2): 300–307.
  11. Holden SE. Diabetes and Cancer. Endocr Dev. 2016; 31: 135–145.
  12. Bułdak Ł, Marek B, Kajdaniuk D, et al. Endocrine diseases as causes of secondary hyperlipidemia. Endokrynol Pol. 2019; 70(6): 511–519.
  13. Staff RT, Chapko D, Hogan MJ, et al. Life course socioeconomic status and the decline in information processing speed in late life. Soc Sci Med. 2016; 151: 130–138.
  14. Van den Bosch K, Geerts J, Willemé P. Long-term care use and socio-economic status in Belgium: a survival analysis using health care insurance data. Arch Public Health. 2013; 71(1): 1.
  15. Chadeau-Hyam M, Bodinier B, Vermeulen R, et al. Education, biological ageing, all-cause and cause-specific mortality and morbidity: UK biobank cohort study. EClinicalMedicine. 2020; 29-30: 100658.
  16. Bledowski P, Mossakowska M, Chudek J, et al. Medical, psychological and socioeconomic aspects of aging in Poland: assumptions and objectives of the PolSenior project. Exp Gerontol. 2011; 46(12): 1003–1009.
  17. Topor-Madry R, Wojtyniak B, Strojek K, et al. Prevalence of diabetes in Poland: a combined analysis of national databases. Diabet Med. 2019; 36(10): 1209–1216.
  18. Kodama S, Horikawa C, Fujihara K, et al. Quantitative relationship between body weight gain in adulthood and incident type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2014; 15(3): 202–214.
  19. Bell JA, Kivimaki M, Hamer M. Metabolically healthy obesity and risk of incident type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Obes Rev. 2014; 15(6): 504–515.
  20. Puzianowska-Kuznicka M, Kuryłowicz A, Walkiewicz D, et al. Obesity Paradox in Caucasian Seniors: Results of the PolSenior Study. J Nutr Health Aging. 2019; 23(9): 796–804.
  21. Bidmon S, Terlutter R. Gender Differences in Searching for Health Information on the Internet and the Virtual Patient-Physician Relationship in Germany: Exploratory Results on How Men and Women Differ and Why. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17(6): e156.
  22. Ek S. Gender differences in health information behaviour: a Finnish population-based survey. Health Promot Int. 2015; 30(3): 736–745.
  23. He XZ, Meng H. Changes in weight among U.S. adults aged 70 and over, 1993 to 2002. Prev Med. 2008; 47(5): 489–493.
  24. Alley DE, Metter EJ, Griswold ME, et al. Changes in weight at the end of life: characterizing weight loss by time to death in a cohort study of older men. Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 172(5): 558–565.
  25. Peter RS, Fromm E, Klenk J, et al. Change in height, weight, and body mass index: longitudinal data from Austria. Am J Hum Biol. 2014; 26(5): 690–696.
  26. Connolly V, Unwin N, Sherriff P, et al. Diabetes prevalence and socioeconomic status: a population based study showing increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in deprived areas. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000; 54(3): 173–177.
  27. Kivimäki M, Virtanen M, Kawachi I, et al. Long working hours, socioeconomic status, and the risk of incident type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data from 222 120 individuals. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015; 3(1): 27–34.
  28. Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Caleyachetty R, Muennig PA, et al. Cumulative social risk and type 2 diabetes in US adults: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2006. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016; 23(12): 1282–1288.
  29. Addo J, Agyemang C, de-Graft Aikins A, et al. Association between socioeconomic position and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Ghanaians in different geographic locations: the RODAM study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017; 71(7): 633–639.
  30. Wilder RP, Majumdar SR, Klarenbach SW, et al. Socio-economic status and undiagnosed diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2005; 70(1): 26–30.
  31. Kowall B, Rathmann W, Strassburger K, et al. Association of passive and active smoking with incident type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly population: the KORA S4/F4 cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25(6): 393–402.
  32. Kim SR, Han K, Choi JY, et al. Age- and sex-specific relationships between household income, education, and diabetes mellitus in Korean adults: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2008-2010. PLoS One. 2015; 10(1): e0117034.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Via MedicaWydawcą serwisu jest  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl