DR. VINOD GUPTA

Health Awareness

Health articles and awareness information from Dr. Vinod Gupta.

General Health Health Awareness Healthy Ageing Lifestyle Nutrition View All
Deprescribing Levothyroxine in Older Adults

Deprescribing Levothyroxine in Older Adults

One-quarter of older adults, greater than or equal to 60 years age, taking levothyroxine may be able to successfully discontinue treatment while maintaining adequate thyroid function (normal free thyroxine [T4] and a thyroid-stimulating hormone [TSH] <10 mU/L) at 1 year, according to a study published in JAMA.1 The likelihood of successful discontinuation was significantly higher among those receiving lower doses ( less than or equal to 50 µg). The study evaluated how many adults aged 60 years or older could safely discontinue levothyroxine while maintaining adequate thyroid function. This prospective, single-group study was conducted across 58 general practices in the Netherlands between January 2020 and July 2022. It included community-dwelling adults aged greater than or equal to 60 years who had been receiving a stable levothyroxine dose of less than or equal to 150 µg/day for at least 1 year and had a TSH concentration <10 mIU/L. The participants were followed up to December 2023. Participants underwent an open-label, protocol-driven, stepwise reduction in levothyroxine dosage. Thyroid function was assessed at least 6 weeks after each dose reduction. The primary outcome was successful discontinuation at 1 year, defined as remaining off levothyroxine while maintaining a TSH level <10 mIU/L and a free thyroxine (T4) concentration within the reference range. A total of 370 participants, median age 70 years. entered the discontinuation phase; majority were female (80%) and the median baseline levothyroxine dose was 50 µg/day. Of these, at 1 year, 366 participants completed follow-up. Overall, 95 participants (25.7%) successfully discontinued levothyroxine while maintaining adequate thyroid function. Their median TSH concentration was 5.03 mIU/L at 1 year, while the mean free T4 was 1.01 ng/dL. Nearly half of those (48.4%) who successfully discontinued treatment had a TSH level below 4.8 mIU/L. Of the 88 participants taking less than or equal to 50 µg of levothyroxine daily, nearly 64% were able to successfully stop levothyroxine. Thyroid-related quality of life, a secondary study outcome, did not show clinically relevant changes over the course of the study, regardless of whether levothyroxine discontinuation was successful. Mildly raised TSH levels (approximately 5-6 mIU/L) may reflect physiological variation in older adults (greater than or equal to 65 years), while higher levels (greater than or equal to 7.0 mIU/L) may require closer clinical evaluation because of the likelihood of adverse health outcomes.2  The present study suggests that long-term levothyroxine therapy may not be necessary for all older adults, aged greater than or equal to 60 years, particularly those receiving relatively low doses (less than or equal to 50 µg/d). Discontinuation did not result in clinically relevant changes in thyroid-related quality of life. Hence the need for continued levothyroxine therapy in this population group should be periodically reassessed, rather than assuming that levothyroxine must invariably be continued lifelong in all older adults. Supervised deprescribing of levothyroxine in carefully selected patients may help minimize potentially unnecessary long-term medication use. References 1.   Ravensberg J, et al. Discontinuation of levothyroxine in adults aged 60 years or older. JAMA. 2026 Apr 6;335(17):1491-1498. doi: 10.1001/jama.2026.2864.2.   Kogai T, et al. Revisiting the TSH range in older adults: associations between subclinical hypothyroidism and geriatric conditions. J Endocr Soc. 2026 Feb 26;10(4):bvag045.

Read Full Article
Daytime Sleepiness and Risk of Predementia in Older Adults

Daytime Sleepiness and Risk of Predementia in Older Adults

Excessive daytime sleepiness or lower enthusiasm to get things done due to sleep problems can significantly increase the risk of predementia or motoric cognitive risk syndrome, as it is formally known, in older adults compared to individuals without such sleep-related issues, according to a study published Nov. 6, 2024 in the journal Neurology.1 Motoric cognitive risk is characterized by the presence of subjective cognitive complaints along with slow gait speed in older individuals without dementia or mobility disability. It is a potential precursor to dementia.2 The objectives of the study were to examine if overall sleep disturbances are associated with an increased risk of developing incident MCR and investigate the relationship between sleep disturbances and prevalent MCR in older adults. The study also evaluated the association of specific subtypes of sleep disturbances with MCR. Subjects who had data available for MCR and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) were included in the study. The PSQI scale encompasses seven components to measure sleep disturbances, each scored from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater dysfunction. These include: sleep duration, sleep disturbance, sleep latency, daytime dysfunction due to sleepiness, sleep efficiency, overall sleep quality, and sleep medication use. MCR was identified based on the self-reported cognitive complaints on standardized questionnaires and slow gait speed measured objectively using an electronic treadmill. A total of 268 participants with PSQI cut score of ≤5 were categorized as “good” sleepers, while 177 with a score of >5 were classified as “poor” sleepers. A total of 445 participants, mean age of ~76 years, who did not have dementia, were included in the study with women comprising ~57% of the study group. At the start of the study, there were 403 participants who did not have MCR. After a follow-up period of 2.9 years (mean), 36 participants developed incident MCR. Poor sleepers had a nearly three-times higher likelihood of developing incident MCR with hazard ratio (HR) of 2.7. However, this association lost statistical significance after adjustment for depressive symptoms with adjusted HR of 1.6. Among the seven components of the PSQI, sleep-related daytime dysfunction (excessive sleepiness and lower enthusiasm) had more than three times higher risk of developing MCR compared to those who did not have those sleep-related problems, even after controlling for confounders such as age, depression and other health conditions (aHR 3.3). No significant association was observed between poor overall sleep quality and prevalent MCR (OR 1.1). This study has shown a clear association between poor sleep quality and incident MCR, though no significant link was observed with prevalent MCR. Hence, there is a need to also focus on daytime consequences of poor sleep in older adults, in addition to nighttime sleep patterns. Early interventions in these patients may support better cognitive health outcomes and reduce the onset of MCR in the older population. References 1.   Leroy V, et al. Association of sleep disturbances with prevalent and incident motoric cognitive risk syndrome in community-residing older adults. Neurology. 2024 Dec 10;103(11):e210054. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000210054. 2.   Verghese J, et al. Motoric cognitive risk syndrome Multicenter incidence study. Neurology. 2014 Dec 9;83(24):2278–2284. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001084.

Read Full Article
Impact of Intensive Vs Relaxed Glycemic Control on Infection-Related Hospitalization

Impact of Intensive Vs Relaxed Glycemic Control on Infection-Related Hospitalization

Older type 2 diabetes patients with HbA1c 8% to <9% have a 33% higher chances of being hospitalized for skin, soft tissue, and bone infections compared to those with HbA1c levels between 6% and <7%, according to a study published Oct. 22, 2024 in the journal Diabetes Care.1 The retrospective cohort study enrolled adults aged 65 and older with type 2 diabetes, from January 2019 to  March 2020, to compare the risk of hospitalization for respiratory, genitourinary infections, skin and soft tissue infections, sepsis and infection of the bone, between those who achieved intensive glycemic control and those who followed a more relaxed approach. Two levels of relaxed HbA1c 7% to <8% and 8% to <9%) were compared with intensive (HbA1c 6% to <7%) glycemic control. Out of the 103,242 patients included in the study, 48.5% had HbA1c levels between 6% and <7%, 35.3% had HbA1c levels between 7% and <8% and 16.1% had HbA1c levels between 8% and <9%. The overall rate of hospitalization for infections was 51.3 per 1,000 person-years. For the HbA1c 8% to <9% group, the unadjusted relative risk (RR) of hospitalization for infections was significantly raised compared to the HbA1c 6% to <7% group, with a relative risk of 1.25. But there was no significant increase in risk of infection in the HbA1c 7% to <8% group, with a relative risk of 0.99, suggesting no major difference compared to the 6% to <7% group. However, after adjusting for confounding factors such as demographics, comorbidities, diabetes medications, microvascular complications, the elevated risk in the HbA1c 8% to <9% group became nonsignificant. The study shows that older adults with type 2 diabetes who maintain relaxed glycemic control (HbA1c levels 7% to <8%) do not face a significantly increased risk of hospitalization for most types of infections compared to those with more stringent control (HbA1c 6% to <7%). In the 7 to <8% group, the RR for respiratory infections was 0.85, for genitourinary infections, it was 1.01, for skin soft tissue and bone, it was 1.10 and sepsis, it was 1.02. However, a higher risk of skin, soft tissue, and bone infections was observed among those with higher HbA1c levels ranging from 8% to <9%, where the RR for respiratory infections was 0.90, for genitourinary infections, it was 0.93, for sepsis, it was 1.03 and for skin soft tissue and bone infection, it was 1.33. These findings therefore suggest that a less aggressive glycemic control to avoid the risks associated with intensive control such as hypoglycemia in older patients with type 2 diabetes is a feasible strategy and is consistent with the recommendations of guidelines that advocate a more moderate glycemic control in this age group. Reference 1.   Kasia J Lipska, et al. Risk of infection in older adults with type 2 diabetes with relaxed glycemic control. Diabetes Care. 2024 Oct 22:dc241612. doi: 10.2337/dc24-1612.

Read Full Article