METHODS: Adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from 11 Asian countries/areas were assessed using the same protocol (2007-2015). We compared treatment target attainment (HbA1c < 7%, blood pressure [BP] < 130/80 mmHg, risk-based LDL-cholesterol, lack of central obesity [waist circumference <90 cm in men or <80 cm in women), use of cardiorenal-protective drugs (renin-angiotensin system [RAS] inhibitors, statins), and self-reported health habits including self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) by gender. Analyses were stratified by countries/areas, age of natural menopause (<50 vs. ≥50 years), and comorbidities (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], heart failure, kidney impairment [eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2]).

FINDINGS: Among 106,376 patients (53.2% men; median (interquartile range) diabetes duration: 6.0 (2.0-12.0) years; mean ± SD HbA1c 8.0 ± 1.9%; 27% insulin-treated), women were older and less likely to receive college education than men (28.9% vs. 48.8%). Women were less likely to smoke/drink alcohol and were physically less active than men. Women had lower BP (<130/80 mmHg: 29.4% vs. 25.7%), less general obesity (54.8% vs. 57.8%) but more central obesity than men (77.5% vs. 57.3%). Women were less likely to have ASCVD (12.8% vs. 17.0%) or heart failure (1.3% vs. 2.3%), but more likely to have kidney impairment (22.3% vs. 17.6%) and any-site cancer than men (2.5% vs. 1.6%). In most countries/areas, more men attained HbA1c <7% and risk-based LDL-cholesterol level than women. After adjusting for potential confounders including countries and centres, men had 1.63 odds ratio (95% CI 1.51, 1.74) of attaining ≥3 treatment targets than women.

INTERPRETATION: Asian women with T2D had worse quality of care than men especially in middle-income countries/areas, calling for targeted implementation programs to close these care gaps.

SPONSOR: Asia Diabetes Foundation.

METHODS: Four validation groups were extracted from a longitudinal community-based study dataset of 12,573 participants aged ≥18 years to validate the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2), Revised Pooled Cohort Equations (RPCE), and World Health Organization cardiovascular disease (WHO CVD) models. Two measures of validation are examined: discrimination and calibration. Outcome of interest was 10-year risk of CVD events (fatal and non-fatal). SCORE2 and RPCE performances were compared to SCORE and PCE, respectively.

FINDINGS: FRS (AUC = 0.750) and RPCE (AUC = 0.752) showed good discrimination in CVD risk prediction. Although FRS and RPCE have poor calibration, FRS demonstrates smaller discordance for FRS vs. RPCE (298% vs. 733% in men, 146% vs. 391% in women). Other models had reasonable discrimination (AUC = 0.706-0.732). Only SCORE2-Low, -Moderate and -High (aged <50) had good calibration (X2 goodness-of-fit, P-value = 0.514, 0.189, 0.129, respectively). SCORE2 and RPCE showed improvements compared to SCORE (AUC = 0.755 vs. 0.747, P-value <0.001) and PCE (AUC = 0.752 vs. 0.546, P-value <0.001), respectively. Almost all risk models overestimated 10-year CVD risk by 3%-1430%.

INTERPRETATION: In Malaysians, RPCE are evaluated be the most clinically useful to predict CVD risk. Additionally, SCORE2 and RPCE outperformed SCORE and PCE, respectively.

Methods: A multidisciplinary group of experts from six ASEAN member states convened for two face-to-face meetings to discuss barriers and possible recommendations for optimizing NCD management, focused on cardiovascular diseases and mental disorders, in the region. Multiple approaches, ie, analysis of insights from the meetings and a review of existing literature on NCD programs in the ASEAN region were followed. The proposed recommendations were also based on selected successful interventions in ASEAN member states, thus providing actionable strategies.

Results: The gaps identified in NCD management for cardiovascular diseases and mental disorders in the ASEAN region were classified into gaps relating to policies and to clinical and public health practice. The proposed solutions addressing policy gaps include fostering multisectoral public-private partnerships, employing "whole-of-government" and "whole-of-society" approaches and promoting "health-in-all policies approach" to manage issues with financing, accessibility, efficiency and quality of health services. Whereas proposed solutions to bridge clinical and public health practice gaps entail strengthening primary care services, building the capacity of trained healthcare workers and employing collaborative care for holistic management of patients.