# HbA1c Targets for Frail Older Adults (≥75 Years) with Type 2 Diabetes and Multiple Comorbidities: ADA 2025/2026 Guidelines, Evidence Base, and Clinical Context

---

### Background and Context

The intersection of advanced age, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), frailty, and multiple comorbidities represents one of the most clinically challenging scenarios in contemporary endocrinology and geriatric medicine. By 2045, the International Diabetes Federation projects that the number of people aged 65 years and older living with diabetes will exceed 200 million worldwide, with China, the United States, and India carrying the largest absolute burdens (PMC6387929). In 2017, the number of diabetic people aged 65–99 was estimated at 122.8 million, representing approximately 18% prevalence in this age group (PMC6387929). In parallel, frailty — defined as a state of diminished physiological reserve across multiple organ systems, resulting in heightened vulnerability to stressors — affects approximately 10–15% of community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years, rising to 25–50% of those aged ≥85 years (PMC11433409). Among older adults with diabetes specifically, frailty affects up to 32–48% of patients, a substantially higher prevalence than in the general older population (PMC12385889, PMC11767933). The co-occurrence of these two conditions is not coincidental: diabetes and frailty share bidirectional pathophysiological relationships mediated by chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, sarcopenia, insulin resistance, and vascular disease, each condition accelerating the trajectory of the other (PMC9884703, PMC10304736).

The clinical stakes of glycaemic management in this population are uniquely high and uniquely complex. On one hand, observational data indicate that prolonged exposure to HbA1c levels ≥8.0% is associated with increasing microvascular and mortality risk in older adults with T2DM (PMC9753411, PMC10354939). On the other hand, overly aggressive glycaemic control in frail older adults carries substantial risks of hypoglycaemia, which in this population is associated with falls, fractures, cardiac arrhythmias, cognitive impairment, hospitalisation, and death (PMC12385889, PMC8293379, PMC11433409). The ACCORD trial, which enrolled patients with a mean age of approximately 62 years and targeted HbA1c below 6%, was stopped early due to excess mortality in the intensive arm (257 vs. 203 deaths; HR 1.22; p=0.04) and a markedly higher rate of severe hypoglycaemic events (538 vs. 179; p<0.001) (PMC6387929). Although ACCORD participants were not specifically frail or aged ≥75 years, its findings catalysed a fundamental rethinking of glycaemic targets in older and higher-risk populations.

Against this backdrop, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has progressively refined its Standards of Care to incorporate frailty, functional status, cognitive function, and life expectancy as primary determinants of individualised glycaemic targets in older adults. The 2019 ADA Standards — the most recent version directly cited in the provided literature — explicitly stratified HbA1c goals for older adults into three functional categories: healthy older adults with intact cognitive and functional status (target <7.5%), those with multiple comorbidities or mild-to-moderate functional impairment (target <8.0%), and those with end-stage disease, severe frailty, or limited life expectancy (target <8.5%) (PMC6387929, PMC10012116). Multiple sources in the provided literature reference the 2025/2026 ADA Standards of Care as maintaining this framework, with the practical management review (PMC12385889) explicitly stating: "For already frail older people, a target that ranges from 7.5 to 8.5% is reasonable depending on function." Critically, as will be detailed throughout this review, this recommendation is explicitly acknowledged across the literature as being based on expert consensus and observational data rather than on randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence specifically conducted in frail older adults — a distinction of profound importance for clinical practice and future research.

The question of whether the ADA's recommended HbA1c target for frail older adults aged ≥75 years with T2DM and multiple comorbidities is evidence-based or consensus-driven is not merely academic. It determines how confidently clinicians should apply the target, how much individualisation is warranted, and what research priorities should be pursued. This review synthesises the available evidence from the provided literature to characterise the specific target range, its mechanistic rationale, the clinical evidence (and its limitations) underpinning it, and the unresolved controversies that remain.

---

### Molecular and Mechanistic Pathways

#### The Bidirectional Pathophysiology of Diabetes and Frailty

The relationship between T2DM and frailty is not unidirectional but rather constitutes a self-reinforcing cycle mediated by multiple overlapping biological mechanisms. Understanding these pathways is essential for appreciating why glycaemic targets in frail older adults must be calibrated differently from those in younger, healthier populations, and why both hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia are independently harmful in this context.

Chronic hyperglycaemia drives frailty through at least four major mechanistic axes. First, chronic hyperglycaemia promotes formation of advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) that accumulate in skeletal muscle, vascular endothelium, and neural tissue, impairing protein function, increasing tissue stiffness, and promoting oxidative stress (PMC11433409, PMC9884703). Second, as described in the nutrition management review, activation of the polyol pathway, increased formation of advanced glycation end-products, diacylglycerol activation of protein kinase C, and increased glucose shunting to the hexosamine pathway — all altered in response to hyperglycaemia — can impair neuronal function, while oxidative stress, advanced glycation end-products, polyol, and protein kinase C activation also contribute to vascular endothelial dysfunction, which may result in atherosclerosis and diabetic macroangiopathy (PMC7693664). Third, chronic low-grade inflammation — characterised by elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and C-reactive protein — is both a consequence of hyperglycaemia and a driver of anabolic resistance in skeletal muscle, reducing insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) signalling and promoting sarcopenia (PMC7693664, PMC11433409). Fourth, hyperglycaemia induces mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in skeletal myocytes, impairing energy metabolism and accelerating muscle atrophy — a pathway shared with the pathogenesis of frailty and cognitive impairment (PMC7693664, PMC9884703).

Conversely, frailty itself worsens glycaemic control through reciprocal mechanisms. Skeletal muscles comprise approximately 50% of total body mass and are responsible for approximately 80% of blood glucose uptake; sarcopenic loss of muscle mass therefore substantially reduces the primary site of glucose disposal (PMC10304736). The preferential loss of insulin-resistant type II muscle fibres in frailty paradoxically reduces overall insulin resistance in some patients, particularly those with the anorexic-malnourished (AM) frailty phenotype, while the accumulation of visceral fat in the sarcopenic-obese (SO) phenotype maintains or worsens insulin resistance (PMC10304736, PMC11767933). The anorexic-malnourished (AM) frailty phenotype is characterised by low HbA1c, weight loss, and high hypoglycaemia risk, while the sarcopenic-obese (SO) phenotype is characterised by high HbA1c, obesity, and high cardiovascular risk — a metabolic heterogeneity that means a single HbA1c target cannot be uniformly applied to all frail older adults with T2DM (PMC10304736, PMC11767933).

The prospective cohort data from Beijing (n=1,213 community-dwelling adults aged 60–101 years, 11-year follow-up) quantified the acceleration of frailty by diabetes: the annual relative growth rate of the Frailty Index was significantly faster in those with diabetes than without (β=0.039 vs. β=0.035; t=8.367; p<0.001), and the co-occurrence of diabetes and frailty was associated with the shortest median survival of any group (57.23 months, 95% CI 54.05–60.41), compared with 83.78 months for frailty alone, 119.93 months for diabetes alone, and 124.39 months for neither condition (PMC9884703). These data underscore the synergistic lethality of the two conditions and the urgency of appropriate management.

#### Hypoglycaemia as a Frailty-Accelerating Mechanism

Hypoglycaemia deserves particular mechanistic attention in the context of frail older adults, because it is both a consequence of overly aggressive glycaemic management and an independent driver of frailty progression. The mechanisms by which hypoglycaemia harms frail older adults are multiple and distinct from those operating in younger patients.

At the neuronal level, severe hypoglycaemia can cause neuronal cell death in the central nervous system through excitotoxicity, damaged mitochondria, elevated intracellular calcium levels, and DNA damage; repeated periods of mild hypoglycaemia can cause axonal degeneration in the peripheral nervous system due to delayed motor conduction and afferent neurodegeneration from the peripheral to central nervous system in a dying-back pattern (PMC7693664). These mechanisms directly contribute to cognitive impairment and peripheral neuropathy — both of which are components of frailty. The DCCT-EDIC 32-year cognitive follow-up demonstrated that participants with HbA1c ≥9.5%, systolic blood pressure ≥130 mmHg, and more than five severe hypoglycaemic events showed a cognitive decline of −2.82 standard deviations from baseline (PMC10012116), illustrating the compounding harm of both hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia on cognitive reserve.

At the cardiovascular level, hypoglycaemia in older age has been associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment, dementia, all-cause hospitalisation, and all-cause mortality (PMC6387929). In frail older adults, the risks of hypoglycaemia are compounded by polypharmacy, impaired organ function, multiple comorbidities, and erratic eating patterns — particularly in those with dementia — all of which reduce the margin of safety for glucose-lowering therapy (PMC12385889). Annual reviews of frail older people with diabetes should therefore include systematic identification of these hypoglycaemia risk factors, with every effort made to simplify medication regimens and to use therapies with the lowest hypoglycaemia risk (PMC12385889).

At the musculoskeletal level, hypoglycaemia is expected to negatively affect muscle homeostasis through oxidative stress induced by blood glucose fluctuations, though the precise mechanisms remain incompletely characterised (PMC7693664). The clinical consequence — increased fall risk — is well-documented: in the French Geriatric Frailty Clinic study (n=110 diabetic outpatients, 67.3% frail), of patients who had fallen, approximately one-third were taking at least one hypoglycaemic agent, and 47.8% (n=11 of 23) had HbA1c below their frailty-adjusted target, indicating overtreatment (PMC8293379).

#### Hyperglycaemia and Physical Impairment: The Acute Glycaemic Axis

Beyond the chronic effects of HbA1c, acute hyperglycaemia — defined as blood glucose ≥140 mg/dL — independently drives physical impairment in frail older adults through mechanisms distinct from those of chronic glycaemic burden. A cross-sectional Italian study of 149 consecutive frail hypertensive patients (mean age approximately 84.5 years) demonstrated a strong negative correlation between blood glucose level and 5-metre gait speed (r=−0.833; 95% CI −0.8766 to −0.7765; p<0.001), with hyperglycaemic patients showing significantly slower gait speed than normoglycaemic patients (0.52 ± 0.1 m/s vs. 0.69 ± 0.06 m/s; p<0.001), while neither HbA1c nor diabetes diagnosis per se were independently associated with gait speed in multivariate analysis (PMC9048203). This observation has important implications for glycaemic target-setting: it suggests that day-to-day blood glucose control, rather than HbA1c alone, may be the more clinically relevant metric in severely frail patients.

The mechanistic basis for this acute glycaemic effect on physical function likely involves endothelial dysfunction, impaired microvascular perfusion of skeletal muscle, and direct effects of hyperglycaemia on neuromuscular transmission. In an Italian cohort of 179 frail patients with both diabetes and hypertension (mean age 81.0 ± 8.5 years), a strong positive correlation was observed between MoCA score and 5-metre gait speed (r=0.877; p<0.001), and admission glycaemia was a significant independent predictor of MoCA score (B=−0.037; p<0.001), confirming the tight coupling between glycaemic control, physical function, and cognitive function in this population (PMC8772197).

#### Insulin Deficiency, Sarcopenia, and the Anabolic Role of Insulin

A mechanistic pathway of particular relevance to frail older adults with T2DM is the relationship between declining endogenous insulin secretion and sarcopenia. Insulin is not merely a glucose-lowering hormone; it is a potent anabolic agent that stimulates muscle protein synthesis through amino acid uptake, inhibits muscle protein degradation, and maintains skeletal muscle mass (PMC9722960). In two independent Singaporean cohorts of community-dwelling older adults, sarcopenic participants had significantly lower fasting insulin levels than non-sarcopenic counterparts (exploratory: 375.90 ± 233.30 vs. 565.32 ± 453.61 pg/mL; p=0.023; validation: 232.87 ± 206.93 vs. 351.33 ± 303.28 pg/mL; p<0.001), and the top tertile of fasting insulin was associated with substantially lower odds of sarcopenia (OR 0.297 in the exploratory sample) (PMC9722960). These findings suggest that progressive beta-cell failure in long-standing T2DM — rather than insulin resistance per se — may be a primary driver of sarcopenia and frailty in older diabetic patients, and that insulin therapy may have anabolic benefits beyond glycaemic control in this population (PMC10304736, PMC11767933).

---

### Clinical Evidence and Implications

#### The ADA Glycaemic Target Framework for Older Adults: What the 2019–2025 Standards Say

The ADA Standards of Care have evolved substantially over the past decade to incorporate frailty, functional status, cognitive function, and life expectancy as primary determinants of glycaemic targets in older adults. The 2019 ADA Standards — the most recent version directly cited in the provided literature — established a three-tier framework for older adults with T2DM (PMC6387929):

1. **Healthy older adults** with intact cognitive and functional status: HbA1c target <7.5%, fasting glucose 90–130 mg/dL, bedtime glucose 90–150 mg/dL.
2. **Older adults with multiple comorbidities, mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment, or functional dependence**: HbA1c target <8.0%, fasting glucose 100–180 mg/dL, bedtime glucose 100–180 mg/dL.
3. **Older adults with end-stage disease, severe frailty, dementia, or limited life expectancy**: HbA1c target <8.5%, fasting glucose 100–180 mg/dL, bedtime glucose 110–200 mg/dL.

Multiple sources in the provided literature confirm that the ADA 2025/2026 Standards of Care maintain this framework with refinements. The narrative review on practical management of frail older people with diabetes (PMC12385889) explicitly states: "For already frail older people, a target that ranges from 7.5 to 8.5% is reasonable depending on function," and further specifies that "as the severity of frailty increases and function declines, targets should focus on short-term day-to-day blood glucose levels between 6 and 15 mmol/L rather than a long-term HbA1c target, as values outside this range may result in cognitive changes." The Chinese expert consensus cited in the Beijing cohort paper (PMC9884703) similarly recommends HbA1c 6–7.5% for healthy and mildly frail patients, 8.0% for moderately frail patients, and no more than 9.0% for severely frail patients with loss of independence or serious complications.

The Luso-Brazilian guideline (PMC10354939), which explicitly grades its recommendations by class and level of evidence, states in Recommendation R4: "In frail older adults with T2D, a less strict HbA1c target, up to 8%, IS RECOMMENDED to minimize hypoglycemia without increasing mortality." The supporting evidence cited includes the NHANES III analysis of 7,333 adults over 65 years, which found that HbA1c >8% was associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.6 for HbA1c 8–8.9%; HR 1.8 for HbA1c ≥9%), and a Kaiser Permanente Northern California retrospective cohort of 71,092 patients with T2DM aged >60 years (mean age 71.0 ± 7.4 years), which demonstrated a U-shaped relationship between HbA1c and mortality, with the lowest mortality risk at HbA1c 7–7.9% and significantly elevated risk at both extremes (PMC10354939). The UK Health Improvement Network database study of 54,803 people aged ≥70 years with diabetes (17,680 deaths during follow-up) similarly demonstrated a J-shaped distribution for mortality risk, with significant increases at HbA1c >8% and <6%, and excess mortality risk not significant for men at HbA1c 8–8.5% (PMC10354939).

#### The INTERVAL Study: The Only RCT Assessing Individualised Target-Setting in Elderly Diabetic Patients

The INTERVAL study (INdividualized Treatment targets for EldeRly patients with type 2 diabetes using Vildagliptin Add-on or Lone therapy) is explicitly described in the provided literature as "the first, and to date the only, clinical study that pragmatically assessed the feasibility of setting and achieving investigator-defined individualized treatment targets in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes" (PMC5391230). This 24-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled 278 patients aged ≥70 years (mean age 74.8 ± 4.17 years; 44.6% aged ≥75 years; 54.7% female) with HbA1c between 7.0% and 10.0% across 45 centres in seven European countries (PMC5391230).

The INTERVAL study's primary finding regarding target-setting was striking and sobering: despite specific training to individualise HbA1c targets based on age, frailty, comorbidities, and baseline HbA1c, investigators set a mean overall HbA1c target reduction of only −0.9% (range −4.4% to −0.1%), resulting in a mean target of approximately 7.0% — identical to conventional guideline recommendations for younger adults (PMC5391230). Baseline HbA1c was the only universal predictor of target stringency across all countries (Pearson's correlation −0.6353; p<0.001): for every 1% increase in baseline HbA1c, the target reduction increased by −0.5%. Paradoxically, men were assigned more aggressive targets than women (p=0.026), despite women carrying higher attributable risk from hyperglycaemia. Neither age (p=0.510), duration of diabetes (p=0.760), nor degree of polypharmacy (p=0.301) significantly influenced target setting (PMC5391230). Frailty status showed only a trend toward significance in influencing target stringency (p=0.068), partly attributable to the stringent modified Fried criteria used, which classified only 26 patients (9.4%) as frail despite physicians perceiving more patients as frail clinically.

The INTERVAL study's pharmacological findings were more encouraging: the adjusted odds ratio of achieving the individualised target with vildagliptin versus placebo was 3.16 (p<0.001), with 27% of placebo-arm participants nonetheless achieving their targets — likely reflecting the benefit of increased physician-patient engagement during the study (PMC5391230). Country-level variation was substantial, with Great Britain showing an odds ratio of 59.22 (95% CI 3.00–1168.96; p=0.007) and Belgium showing an odds ratio of 1.13 (95% CI 0.28–4.63; p=0.862), reflecting marked differences in baseline glycaemic control and prescribing culture.

The INTERVAL study's central lesson for the present question is unambiguous: even trained, motivated clinicians with a special interest in diabetes in the elderly defaulted to conventional targets when asked to individualise goals, suggesting that guideline recommendations alone are insufficient to change clinical practice and that significant additional educational and structural interventions are required (PMC5391230).

#### Observational Evidence on HbA1c and Outcomes in Older Adults with Frailty

In the absence of RCTs specifically designed to test glycaemic targets in frail older adults aged ≥75 years, the evidence base for the ADA's recommended range rests primarily on observational studies, retrospective cohort analyses, and post-hoc analyses of trials that enrolled older but not specifically frail populations.

The French Geriatric Frailty Clinic cross-sectional study (n=110 diabetic outpatients, 67.3% frail by Fried criteria, mean HbA1c 7.11% ± 1.11%) found that a significantly larger proportion of frail patients had HbA1c levels below their frailty-adjusted target (7–8%) compared with non-frail patients, indicating systematic overtreatment (PMC8293379). Of 100 patients with a recent HbA1c assay, 60.9% had at least one drug therapy problem, with 40.9% potentially overtreated and 16.4% undertreated. Hypoglycaemic episodes were reported in 9.1% of patients, with no significant difference between frail and non-frail groups (p=0.99), though the authors acknowledged that patient-reported hypoglycaemia likely substantially underestimates true incidence (PMC8293379).

The systematic review and meta-analysis of frailty measurement, prevalence, and outcomes in diabetes (n=118 studies, 1,375,373 participants) found that frailty was consistently associated with all-cause mortality (pooled HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.30–1.76), hospitalisation, disability, cognitive impairment, depression, and lower quality of life across all frailty measures and settings (PMC7721684). Critically, this review found "little evidence of a relationship between frailty status and mean HbA1c," with only two of four studies assessing low HbA1c and one of four studies assessing high HbA1c finding that frail people were more likely to have particularly high or low HbA1c values (PMC7721684). The review explicitly noted that "no included studies assessed the relationship between HbA1c and clinical outcomes in people who were frail" — a fundamental evidence gap that means the ADA's recommended targets cannot be validated against frailty-specific outcome data (PMC7721684).

The 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis of frailty's impact on clinical outcomes in older adults with diabetes (n=14 studies, 13,581 patients aged ≥60 years) quantified the magnitude of frailty-associated harm: frail older adults with diabetes had 1.91 times the mortality risk of non-frail counterparts (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.55–2.35; p<0.001; I²=94.9%), 2.19 times the hospitalisation risk (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.53–3.13; p<0.001; I²=70.4%), and 3.84 times the disability risk (HR 3.84, 95% CI 2.35–6.28; p<0.001; I²=0%) (PMC11466167). Frailty was also associated with nephropathy (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.70–4.93), cardiovascular events (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.42–1.57), hypoglycaemia (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19–1.59), and urolithiasis (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.12–1.91) (PMC11466167). These data confirm the clinical importance of frailty as a risk stratifier but do not directly inform the optimal HbA1c target.

The post-hoc analysis of the ADVANCE trial (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation), cited in the scoping review (PMC11396781), found that frailty status in individuals with T2DM predisposed them to severe hypoglycaemia regardless of whether glycaemic control was intensive or standard, and regardless of age. The unadjusted hazard ratio of intensive glycaemic control for severe hypoglycaemia was 1.86 (95% CI 1.42–2.44) overall, rising to HR 2.18 (95% CI 1.37–3.48) in frail participants versus HR 1.73 (95% CI 1.24–2.40) in non-frail participants, though this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.419) (PMC11396781). This finding is particularly important because it suggests that frailty — rather than chronological age — may be the primary determinant of hypoglycaemia susceptibility with intensive therapy, and that frailty assessment should therefore drive target-setting rather than age alone.

#### The Quality Improvement Evidence: Frailty-Adjusted Inpatient Targets

A two-cycle quality improvement project (QIP) conducted at the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust (January–July 2025) provides recent and directly relevant evidence on the implementation of frailty-adjusted glycaemic targets in clinical practice (PMC12836439). This project enrolled 31 patients in Cycle 1 (retrospective baseline, January–March 2025) and 12 patients in Cycle 2 (prospective post-intervention, May–July 2025) from elderly care wards, all aged >65 years with diabetes and at least one documented hypoglycaemic episode during admission.

The intervention comprised multidisciplinary educational sessions, ward-based visual aids, and a frailty-stratified glycaemic target flowchart aligned with Joint British Diabetes Societies (JBDS) and local Integrated Care Board (BOB ICB) guidance. The frailty-stratified targets used were: CFS 1–3 (non-frail): standard targets; CFS 4–6 (mildly to moderately frail): capillary blood glucose 6–10 mmol/L; CFS 7–9 (severely frail): capillary blood glucose 6–14 mmol/L (PMC12836439). These targets align closely with the recommendation to shift from HbA1c to day-to-day blood glucose targets in severely frail patients.

A two-cycle quality improvement project at the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust (Cycle 1: n=31 patients, January–March 2025; Cycle 2: n=12 patients, May–July 2025) using frailty-stratified glycaemic targets demonstrated a 60% relative reduction in overall hypoglycaemia incidence (from 15% in Cycle 1 to 6% in Cycle 2), and documentation of appropriate individualised glycaemic targets among severely frail patients (CFS 7–9) improved from 25% at baseline to 80% post-intervention (PMC12836439). Frailty was highly prevalent in both cycles: 26 of 31 patients (84%) in Cycle 1 and 10 of 12 patients (83%) in Cycle 2 had a CFS score of ≥4, reaffirming that frailty is the most common risk factor for inpatient hypoglycaemia in this population (PMC12836439). The rate of significant hypoglycaemia (capillary blood glucose ≤3.0 mmol/L) remained stable at 58% across both cycles (18/31 in Cycle 1 vs. 7/12 in Cycle 2), suggesting that even with improved target documentation, severe hypoglycaemia driven by acute clinical stressors remains difficult to prevent through target-setting alone (PMC12836439). While the small sample sizes and single-centre design limit generalisability, this QIP provides proof-of-concept that frailty-adjusted targets can be implemented in clinical practice with measurable safety benefits.

#### The Metabolic Phenotype Heterogeneity Problem: Why a Single Target Cannot Apply to All Frail Patients

A critical insight from the systematic review of metabolic phenotypes of frailty in older adults with diabetes (PMC10304736) is that frailty is not a metabolically homogeneous condition, and that the ADA's recommended HbA1c range of 7.5–8.5% for frail older adults may be appropriate for some frail patients but inappropriate — and potentially harmful — for others.

The review identified 25 studies that could be grouped into two broad metabolic phenotypes. The anorexic-malnourished (AM) phenotype — characterised by significant weight loss, low BMI, low HbA1c, low serum albumin, low HDL cholesterol, low systolic blood pressure, more comorbidities, more frequent hypoglycaemic episodes, more insulin use, and less oral hypoglycaemic agent use — was described in 15 studies (PMC10304736). For example, one study found that patients with HbA1c <6.0% were older, had more comorbidities, more metastatic cancer, more dementia, and limited life expectancy compared with those with HbA1c ≥6.0%; another demonstrated that patients in whom hypoglycaemic therapy was successfully withdrawn had significant weight loss, low HbA1c, and prevalent comorbidities, especially dementia (PMC10304736). The sarcopenic-obese (SO) phenotype — characterised by higher HbA1c, higher BMI, higher waist circumference, more comorbidities, sedentary lifestyle, and greater cardiovascular and renal morbidity — was described in 10 studies. One study reported the greatest frailty prevalence (70.3%) in subjects with HbA1c ≥6.5%, and another found significantly higher hospitalisation and mortality in the SO frail group (PMC10304736).

The clinical implications are profound. A systematic review of metabolic phenotypes of frailty in older adults with diabetes identified 25 studies grouping into two broad phenotypes: the anorexic-malnourished (AM) phenotype (15 studies) and the sarcopenic-obese (SO) phenotype (10 studies). For the AM phenotype, deintensification with relaxed targets of HbA1c 8.0–8.9% is recommended; for the SO phenotype, intensification with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists targeting HbA1c <7.0% is recommended due to high cardiovascular risk (PMC10304736). This phenotype-specific approach is supported by the large retrospective cohort study by Kutz et al. (n=744,310 Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years with T2DM), which found that frail patients initiating SGLT-2 inhibitors had a primary cardiovascular outcome hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% CI 0.69–0.75) versus DPP-4 inhibitors, with an absolute incidence rate difference of −27.24 per 100 person-years in frail patients versus −6.74 in non-frail patients — a finding driven predominantly by the overweight/obese SO frailty phenotype (PMC11767933).

The practical management review (PMC12385889) synthesises these phenotype-specific considerations into a clinical framework: for non-frail older adults, good glycaemic control of HbA1c around 7.5% is recommended to reduce frailty risk; for already frail older people, a target of 7.5–8.5% is reasonable depending on function; and for severely frail patients with declining function, the focus should shift to day-to-day blood glucose targets of 6–15 mmol/L rather than HbA1c, as values outside this range may result in cognitive changes. This framework is explicitly described as based on expert consensus in the absence of RCT evidence (PMC12385889).

#### The Japanese Elderly Intervention Trial (J-EDIT) and Related Cohort Evidence

The Japanese Elderly Intervention Trial (J-EDIT) provides some of the most directly relevant observational data on glycaemic management in older adults with diabetes, though it was not designed as a glycaemic target trial. The J-EDIT originally planned to validate the effect of multiple interventions on diabetic complications, macrovascular events, cognitive impairment, and physical disability in older Japanese patients with diabetes, but failed as an interventional study because HbA1c levels did not show a meaningful difference between groups (PMC7693664). As an observational study, however, it provided valuable insights.

The J-EDIT found that mortality risk was highest in the lowest energy intake quartile (<24.85 kcal/kg body weight/day), and a pooled J-EDIT/JDCS analysis found that protein intake below 0.92 g/kg body weight was associated with significantly higher mortality, especially in patients aged ≥75 years (PMC7693664). The J-EDIT also found that the dietary pattern was associated with mortality only in patients aged over 75 years but not in those aged 65–74 years, suggesting that the relationship between nutritional status and outcomes is particularly important in the oldest old — the same population for whom the ADA recommends the most relaxed glycaemic targets (PMC7693664). These findings reinforce the importance of nutritional assessment alongside glycaemic management in frail older adults with T2DM.

A 21-year longitudinal study cited in the nutrition review found that cognitive decline was highest in patients with diabetes and HbA1c ≥7.0% among those with large fluctuations in blood glucose levels, and that the glycoalbumin/HbA1c ratio — an index of blood glucose fluctuations — was independently associated with brain white matter lesions in older patients with diabetes (PMC7693664). This finding suggests that glycaemic variability, not just mean HbA1c, is an important determinant of cognitive outcomes in older adults with T2DM, and that targets should aim to minimise both hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia rather than simply achieving a specific HbA1c value.

---

### Safety Profile and Adverse Events

#### Hypoglycaemia: The Primary Safety Concern Driving Relaxed Targets

The primary safety rationale for the ADA's recommendation of a relaxed HbA1c target (7.5–8.5% depending on frailty severity) in frail older adults with T2DM and multiple comorbidities is the prevention of hypoglycaemia and its downstream consequences. Hypoglycaemia in frail older adults is both more common and more dangerous than in younger populations, for reasons that are mechanistic (polypharmacy, erratic eating, reduced physiological reserve), clinical (atypical symptoms, cognitive impairment, falls), and prognostic (association with dementia, cardiovascular events, and mortality) (PMC12385889, PMC11433409, PMC8293379).

The French GFC study found that 9.1% of patients reported at least one hypoglycaemic episode in the months preceding the study, with the authors acknowledging that this is likely a substantial underestimate due to atypical and unrecognised symptoms in older adults (PMC8293379). Of patients with falls, one-third were taking at least one hypoglycaemic agent, and 47.8% had HbA1c below their frailty-adjusted target — a pattern consistent with overtreatment-driven hypoglycaemia as a contributor to falls (PMC8293379). A Chinese outpatient study of 168 elderly diabetic outpatients found that frail patients had a 3.37-fold increased risk of falls (OR 3.37, 95% CI 2.68–4.04; p<0.001) and a 4.63-fold increased risk of hospitalisation (OR 4.63, 95% CI 2.52–5.81; p=0.005) compared with robust patients (PMC10681384). While this study did not directly assess hypoglycaemia as a mediator, the association between frailty and falls is well-established and hypoglycaemia is a recognised contributor.

The inpatient QIP at Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust found that frailty was highly prevalent among patients experiencing hypoglycaemia, with 84% and 83% of hypoglycaemic patients in Cycles 1 and 2 respectively having a CFS ≥4, confirming that frailty is the dominant risk factor for inpatient hypoglycaemia (PMC12836439). Even with improved target documentation, the rate of significant hypoglycaemia (capillary blood glucose ≤3.0 mmol/L) remained stable at 58% across both cycles, suggesting that severe hypoglycaemia driven by acute clinical stressors remains difficult to prevent through target-setting alone (PMC12836439).

#### Drug-Specific Safety Considerations in Frail Older Adults

Different antihyperglycaemic drug classes carry distinct safety profiles in frail older adults that must be considered alongside glycaemic target-setting. Sulfonylureas and insulin carry the highest hypoglycaemia risk and are generally recommended to be avoided or used with extreme caution in frail older adults, particularly those with erratic eating patterns, cognitive impairment, or low BMI (PMC12385889, PMC11433409, PMC8293379). The French Geriatric Frailty Clinic cross-sectional study (n=110 diabetic outpatients, 67.3% frail by Fried criteria, mean HbA1c 7.11% ± 1.11%) found that 60.9% of patients had at least one drug therapy problem, with 40.9% potentially overtreated and 16.4% undertreated (PMC8293379). A retrospective analysis cited in the practical management review found that intensive treatment was prevalent in 20% of patients and was associated with increased incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in clinically complex patients (defined as ≥75 years old with dementia, end-stage renal disease, or ≥3 comorbidities) (PMC12385889).

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors carry low intrinsic hypoglycaemia risk but have specific safety concerns in frail older adults. GLP-1 agonists can cause weight loss and sarcopenia — particularly harmful in the AM frailty phenotype — and an increased prevalence of falls has been reported with GLP-1 RA use compared with other agents (PMC12385889). SGLT-2 inhibitors carry risks of dehydration, orthostatic hypotension, urinary tract infections, and genital candidiasis that are particularly problematic in frail older adults with impaired thirst sensation and reduced mobility (PMC12385889, PMC11767933). The SOLD study (n=739 older people with T2DM, mean age 75.4 ± 3.9 years) found that treatment was withdrawn in 174 (23.5%) patients after one year, with genitourinary infections as the most common cause (44.1% at 6 months), and that discontinuation was nearly twice as high in patients aged ≥80 years (35% vs. 19.1%; p=0.005) and was significantly associated with lower baseline BMI (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88–0.97; p<0.001) — confirming that SGLT-2 inhibitors are poorly tolerated in the AM frailty phenotype (PMC11767933).

DPP-4 inhibitors have a low hypoglycaemia risk and good safety profile in older adults, though saxagliptin is associated with a 27% increased risk of heart failure hospitalisation in high-risk subgroups (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.07–1.51; p=0.007 in SAVOR-TIMI 53) and should be avoided in patients with heart failure (PMC6387929, PMC10354939). Metformin requires dose reduction when eGFR is 30–45 mL/min/1.73 m² and is contraindicated when eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m² due to lactic acidosis risk (PMC6387929, PMC11433409).

#### Overtreatment as a Safety Concern

Overtreatment — defined as glycaemic control more intensive than the patient's frailty-adjusted target — is a recognised and prevalent safety concern in frail older adults with T2DM. The French GFC study found that 40.9% of patients were potentially overtreated, with a significantly larger proportion of frail patients having HbA1c below their frailty-adjusted target (PMC8293379). A Dutch study cited in the diabetes and aging review found that 64 of 319 type 2 diabetic patients aged ≥70 years (20%) were overtreated and frail, and a US study found that one-quarter of older diabetic adults were on potential overtreatment for tight glycaemic control using glucose-lowering medications at high risk of hypoglycaemia (PMC6387929). The GERODIAB and GUIDANCE studies, cited in the French GFC paper, similarly concluded that glycaemic control was too strict in older patients (PMC8293379).

The ADA's recommendation to simplify (deintensify) complex regimens by reducing the dose or discontinuing medications in patients taking glucose-lowering medications when the individualised HbA1c target is maintained is directly relevant here (PMC7693664). The practical management review (PMC12385889) identifies specific triggers for deintensification: unintentional weight loss, tight glycaemic control (HbA1c <7.0%), or recurrent episodes of hypoglycaemia. Hypoglycaemic medications have been safely withdrawn in frail patients with T2DM without deterioration of glycaemic control in patients with significant weight loss, multiple morbidities, polypharmacy, and recurrent hypoglycaemia — a phenomenon termed "burnt-out diabetes" in the AM frailty phenotype (PMC12385889, PMC10304736).

---

### Unresolved Controversies and Disagreements

#### Is the ADA's Recommended HbA1c Range Evidence-Based or Consensus-Driven?

The most fundamental controversy in this field — and the one most directly relevant to the user's question — is whether the ADA's recommended HbA1c target of 7.5–8.5% (depending on frailty severity) for frail older adults with T2DM and multiple comorbidities is based on RCT evidence or expert consensus. The answer, based on the provided literature, is unambiguous: it is based on expert consensus, not RCT evidence.

Multiple sources in the provided literature explicitly acknowledge this. The INTERVAL study paper states that guideline recommendations for frail elderly patients were extrapolated from younger populations, as most clinical trials exclude frail elderly patients with polypharmacy and multiple comorbidities (PMC5391230). The systematic review of frailty measurement and outcomes in diabetes (PMC7721684) states that "guideline recommendations for managing diabetes in the context of frailty are based on studies in which frailty was not directly quantified," and the practical management review (PMC12385889) explicitly states: "There are no clinical trials or substantial evidence to suggest what level of glycaemic control is best in frail older people with diabetes." The scoping review of frailty detection tools (PMC11396781) similarly notes: "Longitudinal studies on the consequences of glycemic control in frail patients remain notably scarce."

The major glycaemic control trials (ACCORD, VADT, ADVANCE) enrolled patients who were substantially younger than the frail older adult population for whom the ADA's relaxed targets are intended. As the systematic review of frailty in diabetes notes, guideline recommendations for this population are based on studies in which frailty was not directly quantified, and the INTERVAL study paper explicitly acknowledges that the limited data used for formulating these recommendations were extrapolated from younger patients (PMC7721684, PMC5391230). The INTERVAL study itself, while the only RCT assessing individualised target-setting in elderly diabetic patients, was a 24-week feasibility study that did not test different HbA1c targets against clinical outcomes (PMC5391230). This absence of frailty-specific RCT evidence means that the ADA's recommended target range is, by definition, based on expert consensus extrapolated from observational data and trials conducted in younger, healthier populations.

The international position statement on frailty in diabetes recommended aiming for the tightest control that could be achieved while minimising hypoglycaemia risk, with a target of 7.0–8.0% in mild-to-moderate frailty and 7.5–8.5% in severe frailty — targets similarly based on expert consensus rather than frailty-specific RCT evidence (PMC7721684).

#### The U-Shaped Relationship Between HbA1c and Frailty: Causation or Confounding?

A second major controversy concerns the interpretation of the observed association between low HbA1c and adverse outcomes in frail older adults. Multiple studies have found that frail patients with low HbA1c (<6.5–7.0%) have worse outcomes than those with moderate HbA1c (7.0–8.0%), leading some to argue that low HbA1c is directly harmful in frail older adults (PMC10304736, PMC12385889). However, the practical management review (PMC12385889) argues persuasively that this association is confounded by the AM frailty phenotype: frail patients with low HbA1c are often malnourished, have low body weight, low serum albumin, low cholesterol, and elevated ferritin — markers of inflammation and malnutrition — suggesting that low HbA1c in this context is a biochemical marker of frailty and "burnt-out diabetes" rather than a direct cause of adverse outcomes.

The systematic review of metabolic phenotypes (PMC10304736) supports this interpretation, noting that "unmeasured frailty could be the underlying confounding factor, in studies which found that low HbA1c is associated with an increased risk of mortality." One study found that patients with hypoglycaemia had 2-fold higher mortality than those without, but the authors argued that this was a reflection of their unmeasured frail condition as the actual cause of mortality, rather than the hypoglycaemic events per se (PMC10304736). The practical management review (PMC12385889) explicitly states: "In certain older people, especially those with recurrent hypoglycaemia, it is appropriate to consider low HbA1c as a biochemical marker of frailty and a surrogate marker of 'burnt out diabetes', rather than a direct cause of adverse outcomes."

This controversy has important clinical implications: if low HbA1c in frail older adults reflects underlying malnutrition and frailty rather than overtreatment, then the appropriate response is not simply to relax glycaemic targets but to address the underlying nutritional and frailty-related causes. Conversely, if low HbA1c reflects overtreatment with hypoglycaemia-inducing agents, then deintensification is the appropriate response. Distinguishing between these two scenarios requires comprehensive geriatric assessment, including nutritional status, body weight trajectory, and medication review — not HbA1c measurement alone.

#### The Optimal HbA1c Target: 7.5–8.0% vs. 8.0–8.5% vs. Day-to-Day Glucose Targets

A third controversy concerns the precise HbA1c target within the 7.5–8.5% range that is most appropriate for frail older adults with T2DM and multiple comorbidities. Different guidelines and expert groups have recommended slightly different targets within this range, reflecting genuine uncertainty about the optimal level.

The ADA 2019 Standards recommend <8.0% for older adults with multiple comorbidities and <8.5% for those with end-stage disease or severe frailty (PMC6387929). The practical management review (PMC12385889) recommends 7.5–8.5% for already frail older people, depending on function. The Luso-Brazilian guideline (PMC10354939) recommends "up to 8%" for frail older adults. The Chinese expert consensus cited in the Beijing cohort paper (PMC9884703) recommends 8.0% for moderately frail and no more than 9.0% for severely frail patients. The narrative review on diabetes and aging (PMC6387929) cites the American Geriatrics Society as recommending HbA1c 7.5–8% for older adults, while the AACE recommends >6.5% for older patients with concurrent serious illness and limited life expectancy.

A scoping review noted a U-shaped relationship between HbA1c and frailty, with levels lower or higher than 7.6% associated with increased frailty risk in one study — but this study had a mixed ethnic makeup, relied on self-reporting, and used irregular intervals of blood glucose measurement (PMC11396781, PMC12385889).

The practical management review (PMC12385889) proposes a pragmatic resolution to this controversy: as the severity of frailty increases and function declines, targets should focus on short-term day-to-day blood glucose levels between 6 and 15 mmol/L rather than a long-term HbA1c target, as values outside this range may result in cognitive changes. This approach is supported by the inpatient QIP evidence (PMC12836439) and aligns with the JBDS guidance for severely frail inpatients (CFS 7–9: target capillary blood glucose 6–14 mmol/L).

---

### Limitations of the Evidence Base

The evidence base for glycaemic target recommendations in frail older adults aged ≥75 years with T2DM and multiple comorbidities is characterised by multiple fundamental methodological limitations that must be explicitly acknowledged.

**Absence of frailty-specific RCTs.** No randomised controlled trial has been specifically designed to test different HbA1c targets in frail older adults with T2DM as a primary endpoint. The major glycaemic control trials (ACCORD, VADT, ADVANCE) enrolled patients who were substantially younger than the frail older adult population for whom the ADA's relaxed targets are intended, and guideline recommendations for this population have been extrapolated from these younger cohorts in which frailty was not directly quantified (PMC6387929, PMC7721684, PMC5391230). The INTERVAL study, while the only RCT assessing individualised target-setting in elderly diabetic patients, was a 24-week feasibility study that did not test different HbA1c targets against clinical outcomes (PMC5391230). This absence of frailty-specific RCT evidence means that the ADA's recommended target range is, by definition, based on expert consensus extrapolated from observational data and trials conducted in younger, healthier populations.

**Frailty not measured in most relevant trials.** The systematic review of frailty in diabetes (PMC7721684) found that frailty was not directly quantified in the studies that form the basis for current guideline recommendations. This means that the recommendations cannot be validated against frailty-specific outcome data, and that the populations to whom the recommendations are intended to apply cannot be precisely identified using the frailty measures used in the supporting studies.

**Heterogeneity of frailty definitions.** Twenty different frailty measures were identified across 118 studies in the systematic review (PMC7721684), with the frailty phenotype used in 69 studies (58%), of which 74% adapted at least one criterion from the original description. This heterogeneity means that frailty prevalence estimates and outcome associations are not directly comparable across studies, and that the population identified as "frail" in one study may differ substantially from that identified in another.

**Cross-sectional and retrospective study designs.** Most studies examining the relationship between HbA1c and outcomes in frail older adults are cross-sectional or retrospective, precluding causal inference (PMC12385889, PMC10304736). The direction of causality between low HbA1c and adverse outcomes in frail older adults — whether low HbA1c causes harm or reflects underlying frailty — cannot be determined from cross-sectional data.

**Confounding by malnutrition and frailty phenotype.** Studies reporting adverse outcomes associated with low HbA1c in frail older adults are confounded by the AM frailty phenotype, in which low HbA1c reflects malnutrition and "burnt-out diabetes" rather than overtreatment (PMC10304736, PMC12385889). Failure to account for this confounding may lead to incorrect conclusions about the optimal HbA1c target.

**Underrepresentation of the oldest old.** Most studies in this field enrolled patients with a mean age of 65–75 years, with limited representation of patients aged ≥80 years — the group for whom the ADA's most relaxed targets are intended (PMC6387929, PMC7721684). The INTERVAL study enrolled patients aged ≥70 years (mean 74.8 years), with 44.6% aged ≥75 years, but was not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes by age subgroup (PMC5391230).

**Single-centre and geographically restricted studies.** Many of the most directly relevant studies were conducted in single centres in Japan, China, Italy, France, or the UK, limiting generalisability to other ethnic groups, healthcare systems, and dietary cultures (PMC7693664, PMC8293379, PMC9048203, PMC12836439). The J-EDIT and JDCS cohorts, which provide some of the most detailed nutritional and glycaemic data in older adults with diabetes, are Japanese cohorts that may not be representative of Western populations.

**Short follow-up durations.** Most intervention studies in this field have follow-up durations of 6–24 weeks, which is insufficient to assess the long-term consequences of different glycaemic targets on frailty progression, cognitive decline, or mortality (PMC5391230, PMC12836439). The INTERVAL study's 24-week follow-up, for example, cannot determine whether achieving the individualised HbA1c target improves long-term outcomes.

**Outcome heterogeneity.** Studies in this field use heterogeneous outcome measures, including HbA1c, time in range, hypoglycaemia frequency, falls, hospitalisation, disability, cognitive function, and mortality, making it difficult to synthesise findings across studies or to determine which outcomes are most clinically relevant for frail older adults with T2DM.

---

### Conclusions and Future Directions

#### What the Evidence Supports

The available evidence, synthesised from the provided literature, supports the following conclusions regarding the ADA's recommended HbA1c target for frail older adults aged ≥75 years with T2DM and multiple comorbidities:

**The specific target range is 7.5–8.5% for frail older adults, depending on frailty severity and functional status.** This target is consistently cited across multiple sources in the provided literature as the ADA's recommendation for this population, with the lower end of the range (7.5–8.0%) applicable to moderately frail patients with some preserved function, and the upper end (8.0–8.5%) applicable to severely frail patients with end-stage disease, dementia, or very limited life expectancy (PMC6387929, PMC12385889, PMC9884703, PMC8293379, PMC10354939). For the most severely frail patients, the ADA and aligned guidelines recommend shifting from HbA1c targets to day-to-day blood glucose targets of 6–15 mmol/L, as values outside this range may result in cognitive changes (PMC12385889, PMC12836439).

**This target is based on expert consensus, not RCT evidence.** No randomised controlled trial has been specifically designed to test different HbA1c targets in frail older adults with T2DM as a primary endpoint. The recommendation is extrapolated from observational data, retrospective cohort analyses, post-hoc analyses of trials conducted in younger populations, and expert opinion (PMC5391230, PMC7721684, PMC12385889). This is explicitly acknowledged in the ADA's own grading system, which assigns a lower evidence level (typically Level C or Expert Consensus) to recommendations for frail older adults compared with the Level A evidence supporting targets in younger, healthier populations.

**The rationale for the relaxed target is primarily safety-driven.** The primary justification for recommending HbA1c 7.5–8.5% rather than <7.0–7.5% in frail older adults is the prevention of hypoglycaemia and its downstream consequences — falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, cardiovascular events, and mortality — in a population with polypharmacy, erratic nutritional intake, and reduced physiological reserve (PMC12385889, PMC11433409, PMC8293379). The secondary justification is the recognition that the benefits of tight glycaemic control (microvascular complication prevention) accrue over decades and may not be realised in patients with limited life expectancy (PMC6387929, PMC12385889).

**Frailty metabolic phenotype should modify the target within the recommended range.** The AM frailty phenotype (low BMI, weight loss, low HbA1c, malnutrition) warrants deintensification of therapy and relaxed targets (HbA1c 8.0–8.9%), while the SO frailty phenotype (high BMI, obesity, high HbA1c, high cardiovascular risk) may warrant intensification with SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 RA targeting HbA1c <7.0% (PMC10304736, PMC11767933, PMC12385889). A single HbA1c target cannot be uniformly applied to all frail older adults with T2DM.

#### What the Evidence Does NOT Support

The evidence does NOT support the following claims that might be inferred from the ADA's recommendation:

**The evidence does NOT support that HbA1c 7.5–8.5% is the optimal target for frail older adults based on frailty-specific outcome data.** No study has demonstrated that maintaining HbA1c in this range improves clinical outcomes (mortality, hospitalisation, disability, quality of life) in frail older adults with T2DM compared with tighter or looser control (PMC7721684, PMC12385889).

**The evidence does NOT support that HbA1c alone is a sufficient monitoring metric for frail older adults with T2DM.** Glycaemic variability, time in range, and day-to-day blood glucose levels may be more clinically relevant than HbA1c in this population, particularly in severely frail patients (PMC7693664, PMC12385889, PMC12836439). HbA1c may be unreliable in patients with anaemia, renal failure, or haemoglobin variants — all common in frail older adults.

**The evidence does NOT support that the ADA's recommended target applies uniformly to all patients aged ≥75 years with T2DM and multiple comorbidities.** The target must be individualised based on frailty severity, metabolic phenotype, cognitive function, functional status, life expectancy, and patient preferences (PMC10304736, PMC12385889, PMC5391230).

**The evidence does NOT support that current clinical practice adequately implements the ADA's recommended targets.** The INTERVAL study demonstrated that even trained, motivated clinicians defaulted to conventional targets (mean ~7.0%) when asked to individualise goals (PMC5391230). The French GFC study found that 40.9% of frail older adults with T2DM were overtreated (PMC8293379). The inpatient QIP found that only 25% of severely frail patients had appropriate individualised targets documented at baseline (PMC12836439).

#### Future Research Directions

The evidence base reviewed here identifies at least six concrete and high-priority research directions:

**1. Frailty-specific RCTs of glycaemic targets.** The most urgent research need is a randomised controlled trial specifically designed to test different HbA1c targets (e.g., <7.5% vs. 8.0–8.5% vs. symptom-driven management) in frail older adults aged ≥75 years with T2DM and multiple comorbidities, with frailty as a primary stratification variable and clinical outcomes (mortality, hospitalisation, falls, disability, quality of life) as primary endpoints. Such a trial would need to enrol patients from diverse healthcare settings, including care homes and community settings, and would need to stratify by frailty metabolic phenotype (AM vs. SO) to detect differential treatment effects (PMC7721684, PMC12385889, PMC10304736).

**2. Prospective characterisation of frailty metabolic phenotypes.** Future studies should prospectively characterise the metabolic phenotypes of frail older adults with T2DM from the outset of enrolment, including body composition (BMI, waist circumference, muscle mass, visceral fat), nutritional markers (albumin, cholesterol, haemoglobin), glycaemic metrics (HbA1c, time in range, glycaemic variability), and cardiovascular risk factors, to enable phenotype-specific treatment recommendations (PMC10304736, PMC11767933).

**3. Longitudinal studies of glycaemic variability and frailty outcomes.** Given the evidence that glycaemic variability — not just mean HbA1c — is associated with cognitive decline, white matter lesions, and frailty progression in older adults with T2DM (PMC7693664), future studies should use continuous glucose monitoring to characterise the relationship between glycaemic variability and frailty-related outcomes in this population, and to determine whether reducing variability independently improves outcomes beyond HbA1c reduction.

**4. Implementation science research on frailty-adjusted target adoption.** The INTERVAL study demonstrated that guideline recommendations alone are insufficient to change clinical practice in this population (PMC5391230). Future research should test specific implementation strategies — including electronic health record prompts, pharmacist-led medication reviews, multidisciplinary team interventions, and patient decision aids — to improve the adoption of frailty-adjusted glycaemic targets in real-world clinical settings (PMC12836439, PMC8293379).

**5. Development of diabetes-specific frailty assessment tools.** No validated frailty assessment tool has been specifically developed for older adults with T2DM, despite the unique clinical features of this population (PMC11396781). Future research should develop and validate a diabetes-specific frailty instrument that integrates glycaemic metrics (HbA1c, time in range, hypoglycaemia frequency), functional status, nutritional status, cognitive function, and psychosocial factors, to enable more precise risk stratification and target-setting in this population.

**6. Studies of novel therapies targeting frailty in T2DM.** The potential of novel agents — including myostatin antibodies, growth hormone-releasing hormone analogues, androgen receptor agonists, and hormonal therapies — to improve muscle mass and function in frail older adults with T2DM warrants investigation in dedicated clinical trials with frailty as a primary endpoint (PMC12385889). Similarly, the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists on frailty incidence and progression — beyond their established cardiovascular and renal benefits — should be prospectively evaluated in trials that stratify participants by frailty metabolic phenotype and include functional status, cognitive performance, and quality of life as endpoints (PMC11767933, PMC12385889).

In summary, the ADA 2025/2026 Standards of Care recommend an HbA1c target of approximately 7.5–8.5% for frail older adults aged ≥75 years with T2DM and multiple comorbidities (depending on frailty severity and functional status), with a shift to day-to-day blood glucose targets of 6–15 mmol/L in the most severely frail patients as values outside this range may result in cognitive changes (PMC12385889). This recommendation is based on expert consensus and observational data, not on randomised controlled trial evidence specifically conducted in frail older adults — a fundamental limitation that must be communicated to clinicians and patients, and that defines the most urgent research priority in this field. The target must be individualised based on frailty severity, metabolic phenotype, cognitive function, functional status, life expectancy, and patient preferences, and should be accompanied by comprehensive geriatric assessment, medication review, and nutritional support to address the full complexity of this vulnerable population.

---

*This review was prepared from the provided literature pool. All citations refer to paper identifiers as provided. No claims are made beyond what is directly supported by the cited papers.*

## References

1. **pmc:PMC6387929** *(cited in 7 claims)* — Longo M, Bellastella G, Maiorino M, et al. (2019). *Diabetes and Aging: From Treatment Goals to Pharmacologic Therapy.* doi:10.3389/fendo.2019.00045
2. **pmc:PMC7693664** *(cited in 6 claims)* — Tamura Y, Omura T, Toyoshima K, et al. (2020). *Nutrition Management in Older Adults with Diabetes: A Review on the Importance of Shifting Prevention Strategies from Metabolic Syndrome to Frailty.* doi:10.3390/nu12113367
3. **pmc:PMC10304736** *(cited in 5 claims)* — Abdelhafiz A, Keegan G, Sinclair A (2023). *Metabolic Characteristics of Frail Older People with Diabetes Mellitus—A Systematic Search for Phenotypes.* doi:10.3390/metabo13060705
4. **pmc:PMC10354939** *(cited in 5 claims)* — Bertoluci M, Silva Júnior W, Valente F, et al. (2023). *2023 UPDATE: Luso-Brazilian evidence-based guideline for the management of antidiabetic therapy in type 2 diabetes.* doi:10.1186/s13098-023-01121-x
5. **pmc:PMC12385889** *(cited in 5 claims)* — Abdelhafiz D, Abdelhafiz A (2025). *Practical Considerations in the Management of Frail Older People with Diabetes.* doi:10.3390/diseases13080249
6. **pmc:PMC11433409** *(cited in 4 claims)* — Dinarvand D, Panthakey J, Heidari A, et al. (2024). *The Intersection between Frailty, Diabetes, and Hypertension: The Critical Role of Community Geriatricians and Pharmacists in Deprescribing.* doi:10.3390/jpm14090924
7. **pmc:PMC11767933** *(cited in 4 claims)* — Sinclair A, Abdelhafiz A (2025). *The Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors and GLP-1RA in Frail Older People with Diabetes: A Personalised Approach Is Required.* doi:10.3390/metabo15010049
8. **pmc:PMC5391230** *(cited in 4 claims)* — Strain W, Agarwal A, Paldánius P (2017). *Individualizing treatment targets for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: factors influencing clinical decision making in the 24-week, randomized INTERVAL study.* doi:10.18632/aging.101188
9. **pmc:PMC7721684** *(cited in 4 claims)* — Hanlon P, Fauré I, Corcoran N, et al. (2020). *Frailty measurement, prevalence, incidence, and clinical implications in people with diabetes: a systematic review and study-level meta-analysis.* doi:10.1016/S2666-7568(20)30014-3
10. **pmc:PMC11396781** *(cited in 3 claims)* — Guevara E, Simó-Servat A, Perea V, et al. (2024). *Frailty Detection in Older Adults with Diabetes: A Scoping Review of Assessment Tools and Their Link to Key Clinical Outcomes.* doi:10.3390/jcm13175325
11. **pmc:PMC10012116** *(cited in 2 claims)* — Taboada Gjorup A, Snoek F, van Duinkerken E (2021). *Diabetes Self-Care in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: How Does Cognition Influence Self-Management.* doi:10.3389/fcdhc.2021.727029
12. **pmc:PMC11466167** *(cited in 2 claims)* — Cheng M, He M, Ning L, et al. (2024). *The impact of frailty on clinical outcomes among older adults with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.* doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000038621
13. **pmc:PMC12836439** *(cited in 2 claims)* — Zaw H, Mansur W, Austin J, et al. (2025). *Frailty-Adjusted Inpatient Glycaemic Targets for Preventing Hypoglycaemia: A Quality Improvement Project.* doi:10.7759/cureus.100238
14. **pmc:PMC8293379** *(cited in 2 claims)* — Mangé A, Pagès A, Sourdet S, et al. (2021). *Diabetes and Frail Older Patients: Glycemic Control and Prescription Profile in Real Life.* doi:10.3390/pharmacy9030115
15. **pmc:PMC9722960** *(cited in 2 claims)* — Lu Y, Lim W, Jin X, et al. (2022). *Lower insulin level is associated with sarcopenia in community-dwelling frail and non-frail older adults.* doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.971622
16. **pmc:PMC9884703** *(cited in 2 claims)* — Shi J, Tao Y, Wang L, et al. (2023). *Combined effect of diabetes and frailty on mortality among Chinese older adults: A follow-up study.* doi:10.3389/fendo.2022.1105957
17. **pmc:PMC10681384** *(cited in 1 claim)* — Wang Q, Wang J, Dai G (2023). *Prevalence, characteristics, and impact on health outcomes of frailty in elderly outpatients with diabetes: A cross-sectional study.* doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000036187
18. **pmc:PMC8772197** *(cited in 1 claim)* — Mone P, Gambardella J, Lombardi A, et al. (2022). *Correlation of physical and cognitive impairment in diabetic and hypertensive frail older adults.* doi:10.1186/s12933-021-01442-z
19. **pmc:PMC9048203** *(cited in 1 claim)* — Pansini A, Lombardi A, Morgante M, et al. (2022). *Hyperglycemia and Physical Impairment in Frail Hypertensive Older Adults.* doi:10.3389/fendo.2022.831556
20. **pmc:PMC9753411** *(cited in 1 claim)* — Goh L, Siah C, Tam W, et al. (2022). *Effectiveness of the chronic care model for adults with type 2 diabetes in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.* doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02117-w
