BACKGROUND: Insulin distress, an emotional response of the patient to the suggested use of insulin, acts as a major barrier to insulin therapy in the management of DM. Addressing patient-, physician- and drug-related factors is important to overcome insulin distress. Strengthening of communication between physicians and patients with diabetes and enhancing the patients' coping skills are prerequisites to create a sense of comfort with the use of insulin. Insulin motivation is key to achieving targeted goals in diabetes care. A group of endocrinologists came together at an international meeting held in India to develop tool kits that would aid a practitioner in implementing insulin motivation strategies at different stages of the journey through insulin therapy, including pre-initiation, initiation, titration and intensification. During the meeting, emphasis was placed on the challenges and limitations faced by both physicians and patients with diabetes during each stage of the journey through insulinization.
REVIEW RESULTS: After review of evidence and discussions, the expert group provided recommendations on strategies for improved insulin acceptance, empowering behavior change in patients with DM, approaches for motivating patients to initiate and maintain insulin therapy and best practices for insulin motivation at the pre-initiation, initiation, titration and intensification stages of insulin therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: In the management of DM, bringing in positive behavioral change by motivating the patient to improve treatment adherence helps overcome insulin distress and achieve treatment goals.
METHODS: Data collected from Saudi Arabia and 12 other mostly Muslim majority countries, via physician administered questionnaire within post Ramadan 2020.
RESULTS: 1485 Type1 diabetes (T1DM) patients analyzed; 705 (47.5%) from Saudi Arabia vs. 780 (52.5%) from other countries. 1056 (71.1%) fasted Ramadan; 636 (90.2%) of Saudi patients vs. 420 (53.8%) of other countries. Experiencing Ramadan during the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the Saudi T1DM patients' decision to fast while it significantly influenced their decision in other countries (1.4 vs 9.9%, P
METHODS: Muslim people with diabetes and CKD were surveyed in 13 countries shortly after the end of Ramadan 2020, using a simple Survey Monkey questionnaire.
RESULTS: This survey recruited 6736 people with diabetes, of which 707 (10.49%) had CKD. There were 118 (16.69%) people with type1 diabetes (T1D), and 589 (83.31%) were with type2 diabetes (T2D). 62 (65.24%) people with T1D and 448 (76.06%) people with T2D had fasted with CKD. Episodes of hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia were more frequent among people with T1D compared to T2D, 64.52% and 43.54% vs 25.22% and 22.32% respectively. Visits to the emergency department and hospitalization were more frequent among people with CKD, however no significant difference was found between people with T1D and T2D.
CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic had only a minor effect on the intention to fast during Ramadan in people with diabetes and CKD. However, hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia were found to be more frequent, as well as emergency visits and hospital admissions among people with diabetic kidney disease. Prospective studies are needed in future to evaluate the risk indicators of hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia among fasting people with CKD, especially in the context of different stages of kidney disease.
METHODS: Muslim people with T1DM were surveyed in 13 countries between June and August 2020, shortly after the end of Ramadan (23rd April-23rd May 2020) using a simple questionnaire.
RESULTS: 71.1% of muslims with T1DM fasted during Ramadan. Concerns about COVID-19 were higher in individuals ≥18 years (p = 0.002). The number of participants who decided not to fast plus those who received Ramadan-focused education were significantly higher in the ≥18-year group (p
METHODS: Participants were consented to answer a physician-administered questionnaire following Ramadan 2020. Impact of COVID-19 on the decision of fasting, intentions to fast and duration of Ramadan and Shawal fasting, hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia events were assessed. Specific analysis comparing age categories of <65 years and ≥65 years were performed.
RESULTS: Among the 5865 participants, 22.5% were ≥65 years old. Concern for COVID-19 affected fasting decision for 7.6% (≥65 years) vs 5.4% (<65 years). More participants ≥65 years old did not fast (28.8% vs 12.7%, <65 years). Of the 83.6%, participants fulfilling Ramadan-fasting, 94.8% fasted ≥15 days and 12.6% had to break fast due to diabetes-related illness. The average number of days fasting within and post-Ramadan were 27 and 6 days respectively, regardless of age. Hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia occurred in 15.7% and 16.3% of participants respectively, with 6.5% and 7.4% requiring hospital care respectively. SMBG was performed in 73.8% of participants and 43.5% received Ramadan-focused education.
CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, universally high rates of Ramadan-fasting were observed regardless of fasting risk level. Glycemic complications occurred frequently with older adults requiring higher rates of acute hospital care. Risk stratification is essential followed by pre-Ramadan interventions, Ramadan-focused diabetes education and self-monitoring to reduce and prevent complications, with particular emphasis in older adults.
METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with T2D from eight publicly-funded hospitals in the Greater Kuala Lumpur region, who had ≥2 outpatient visits within the preceding year and irrespective of treatment regimen, were eligible. The primary outcome was ≥2 treatment target attainment (defined as either HbA1c <7.0%, blood pressure [BP] <130/80 mmHg, or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] <1.8 mmol/L). The secondary outcomes were the individual treatment target, a combination of all three treatment targets, and patterns of GDMT use. To assess for potential heterogeneity of study findings, all outcomes were stratified according to prespecified baseline characteristics namely 1) history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD; yes/no) and 2) clinic type (Diabetes specialist versus General medicine).
RESULTS: Among 5094 patients (mean±SD age 59.0±13.2 years; T2D duration 14.8±9.2 years; HbA1c 8.2±1.9% (66±21 mmol/mol); BMI 29.6±6.2 kg/m2; 45.6% men), 99% were at high/very high cardiorenal risk. Attainment of ≥2 treatment targets was at 18%, being higher in General medicine than in Diabetes specialist clinics (20.8% versus 17.5%; p = 0.039). The overall statin coverage was 90%. More patients with prior ASCVD attained LDL-C <1.4 mmol/L than those without (13.5% versus 8.4%; p<0.001). Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (13.2% versus 43.2%), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) (1.0% versus 6.2%), and insulin (27.7% versus 58.1%) were lower in General medicine than in Diabetes specialist clinics.
CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients with T2D, treatment target attainment and use of GDMT were suboptimal.
METHODOLOGY: ARISE, an open-label, multicenter, non-interventional, prospective study was conducted between August 2019 and December 2020. Adult Malaysian patients with T2DM who were enrolled from 14 sites received IDegAsp as per the local label for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels from baseline to end of study (EOS).
RESULTS: Of the 182 patients included in the full analysis set, 159 (87.4%) completed the study. From baseline to EOS, HbA1c (estimated difference [ED]: -1.3% [95% CI: -1.61 to -0.90]) and fasting plasma glucose levels (ED: -1.8 mmol/L [95% CI: -2.49 to -1.13]) were significantly reduced (p<0.0001). The patient-reported reduced hypoglycemic episodes (overall and nocturnal) during treatment. Overall, 37 adverse events were observed in 23 (12.6%) patients.
CONCLUSION: Switching or initiating IDegAsp treatment resulted in significant improvements in glycemic control and a reduction in hypoglycemic episodes.
METHODOLOGY: The AFES ASEAN Survey Of Needs in Endocrinology (AFES A.S.-O.N.E.) was an open-ended questionnaire that was sent to the presidents and representatives of the AFES member countries by email. Responses from Societies were collated and synthesized to obtain perspectives on the emergent issues in endocrinology in the Southeast Asian region during this pandemic.
RESULTS: The burden of COVID-19 cases varied widely across the AFES member countries, with the least number of cases in Vietnam and Myanmar, and the greatest number of cases in either the most populous countries (Indonesia and the Philippines), or a country with the highest capability for testing (Singapore). The case fatality rate was also the highest for Indonesia and the Philippines at around 6%, and lowest for Vietnam at no fatalities. The percentage with diabetes among patients with COVID-19 ranged from 5% in Indonesia to 20% in Singapore, approximating the reported percentages in China and the United States. The major challenges in managing patients with endocrine diseases involved inaccessibility of health care providers, clinics and hospitals due to the implementation of lockdowns, community quarantines or movement control among the member countries. This led to disruptions in the continuity of care, testing and monitoring, and for some, provision of both preventive care and active management including surgery for thyroid cancer or pituitary and adrenal tumors, and radioactive iodine therapy. Major disruptions in the endocrine fellowship training programs were also noted across the region, so that some countries have had to freeze hiring of new trainees or to revise both program requirements and approaches to training due to the closure of outpatient endocrine clinics. The same observations are seen for endocrine-related researches, as most research papers have focused on the pandemic. Finally, the report ends by describing innovative approaches to fill in the gap in training and in improving patient access to endocrine services by Telemedicine.
CONCLUSION: The burden of COVID-19 cases and its case fatality rate varies across the AFES member countries but its impact is almost uniform: it has disrupted the provision of care for patients with endocrine diseases, and has also disrupted endocrine fellowship training and endocrine-related research across the region. Telemedicine and innovations in training have been operationalized across the AFES countries in an attempt to cope with the disruptions from COVID-19, but its over-all impact on the practice of endocrinology across the region will only become apparent once we conquer this pandemic.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 13 July 2021 for randomised controlled trials comparing second-line glucose lowering therapies with placebo, standard care or one another. Primary outcomes included cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Secondary outcomes were non-cardiovascular adverse events. Risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding confidence intervals (CI) or credible intervals (CrI) were reported within pairwise and network meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed (NNH) to harm were calculated at 5 years using incidence rates and RRs. PROSPERO (CRD42020168322).
RESULTS: We included 38 trials from seven classes of glucose-lowering therapies. Both sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) showed moderate to high certainty in reducing risk of 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events, 3P-MACE (network estimates: SGLT2i [RR 0.90; 95% CrI 0.84-0.96; NNT, 59], GLP1RA [RR 0.88; 95% CrI 0.83-0.93; NNT, 50]), cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, renal composite outcome and macroalbuminuria. SGLT2i also showed high certainty in reducing risk of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF), ESRD, acute kidney injury, doubling in serum creatinine and decline in eGFR. GLP1RA were associated with lower risk of stroke (high certainty) while glitazone use was associated with an increased risk of hHF (very low certainty). The risk of developing ESRD was lower with the use of sulphonylureas (low certainty). For adverse events, sulphonylureas and insulin were associated with increased hypoglycaemic events (very low to low certainty), while GLP1RA increased the risk of gastrointestinal side effects leading to treatment discontinuation (low certainty). DPP-4i increased risk of acute pancreatitis (low certainty). SGLT2i were associated with increased risk of genital infection, volume depletion (high certainty), amputation and ketoacidosis (moderate certainty). Risk of fracture was increased with the use of glitazones (moderate certainty).
CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2i and GLP1RA were associated with lower risk for different cardiorenal end points, when used as an adjunct to metformin in people with type 2 diabetes. Additionally, SGLT2i demonstrated benefits in reducing risk for surrogate end points in kidney disease progression. Safety outcomes differ among the available pharmacotherapies.
METHODS: A state-transition microsimulation model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of 4 treatments: standard care, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a healthcare provider's perspective over a lifetime horizon with 3% discount rate in a hypothetical cohort of people with T2D. Data input were informed from literature and local data when available. Outcome measures include costs, quality-adjusted life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and net monetary benefits. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainties.
RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, the costs to treat a person with T2D ranged from RM 12 494 to RM 41 250, whereas the QALYs gains ranged from 6.155 to 6.731, depending on the treatment. Based upon a willingness-to-pay threshold of RM 29 080 per QALY, we identified SGLT2i as the most cost-effective glucose-lowering treatment, as add-on to standard care over patient's lifetime, with the net monetary benefit of RM 176 173 and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of RM 12 279 per QALY gained. The intervention also added 0.577 QALYs and 0.809 LYs compared with standard care. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that SGLT2i had the highest probability of being cost-effective in Malaysia across varying willingness-to-pay threshold. The results were robust to various sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2i was found to be the most cost-effective intervention to mitigate diabetes-related complications.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We randomized 230 patients with overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes, and glycated hemoglobin (A1c) 7%-11% to receive usual care (UC) or UC with tDNA for 6 months. The tDNA intervention consisted of structured low-calorie meal plan, diabetes-specific meal replacements, and increased physical activity. Participants were counseled either through motivational interviewing (tDNA-MI) or conventional counseling (tDNA-CC). The UC group received standard dietary and exercise advice through conventional counseling. All patients were followed for another 6 months after intervention.
RESULTS: At 6 months, A1c decreased significantly in tDNA-MI (-1.1±0.1%, p<0.001) and tDNA-CC (-0.5±0.1%, p=0.001) but not in UC (-0.2±0.1%, p=NS). Body weight decreased significantly in tDNA-MI (-6.9±1.3 kg, p<0.001) and tDNA-CC (-5.3±1.2 kg, p<0.001) but not in UC (-0.8±0.5 kg, p=NS). tDNA-MI patients had significantly lower fasting plasma glucose (tDNA-MI: -1.1±0.3 mmol/L, p<0.001; tDNA-CC: -0.6±0.3 mmol/L, p=NS; UC: 0.1±0.3 mmol/L, p=NS) and systolic blood pressure (tDNA-MI: -9±2 mm Hg, p<0.001; tDNA-CC: -9±2 mm Hg, p=0.001; UC: -1±2 mm Hg, p=NS). At 1 year, tDNA-MI patients maintained significant reduction in A1c (tDNA-MI: -0.5±0.2%, p=0.006 vs tDNA-CC: 0.1±0.2%, p=NS and UC: 0.02±0.01%, p=NS) and significant weight loss (tDNA-MI: -5.8±1.3 kg, p<0.001 vs tDNA-CC: -3.3±1.2 kg, p=NS and UC: 0.5±0.6 kg, p=NS).
CONCLUSIONS: Structured lifestyle intervention through culturally adapted nutrition algorithm and motivational interviewing significantly improved diabetes control and body weight in primary care setting.