Objective: To examine the effects of a quality improvement intervention comprising information and communications technology and contact with nonphysician personnel on the care and cardiometabolic risk factors of patients with type 2 diabetes in 8 Asia-Pacific countries.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This 12-month multinational open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 28, 2012, to April 28, 2016, at 50 primary care or hospital-based diabetes centers in 8 Asia-Pacific countries (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam). Six countries were low and middle income, and 2 countries were high income. The study was conducted in 2 phases; phase 1 enrolled 7537 participants, and phase 2 enrolled 13 297 participants. Participants in both phases were randomized on a 1:1 ratio to intervention or control groups. Data were analyzed by intention to treat and per protocol from July 3, 2019, to July 21, 2020.
Interventions: In both phases, the intervention group received 3 care components: a nurse-led Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) technology-guided structured evaluation, automated personalized reports to encourage patient empowerment, and 2 or more telephone or face-to-face contacts by nurses to increase patient engagement. In phase 1, the control group received the JADE technology-guided structured evaluation and automated personalized reports. In phase 2, the control group received the JADE technology-guided structured evaluation only.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of diabetes-associated end points, including cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, visual impairment or eye surgery, lower extremity amputation or foot ulcers requiring hospitalization, all-site cancers, and death. The secondary outcomes were the attainment of 2 or more primary diabetes-associated targets (glycated hemoglobin A1c <7.0%, blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL) and/or 2 or more key performance indices (reduction in glycated hemoglobin A1c≥0.5%, reduction in systolic blood pressure ≥5 mm Hg, reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥19 mg/dL, and reduction in body weight ≥3.0%).
Results: A total of 20 834 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized in phases 1 and 2. In phase 1, 7537 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.0 [11.3] years; 3914 men [51.9%]; 4855 patients [64.4%] from low- and middle-income countries) were randomized, with 3732 patients allocated to the intervention group and 3805 patients allocated to the control group. In phase 2, 13 297 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [11.1] years; 7754 men [58.3%]; 13 297 patients [100%] from low- and middle-income countries) were randomized, with 6645 patients allocated to the intervention group and 6652 patients allocated to the control group. In phase 1, compared with the control group, the intervention group had a similar risk of experiencing any of the primary outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.74-1.21) but had an increased likelihood of attaining 2 or more primary targets (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.21-1.49) and 2 or more key performance indices (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.34). In phase 2, the intervention group also had a similar risk of experiencing any of the primary outcomes (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.83-1.25) and had a greater likelihood of attaining 2 or more primary targets (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.14-1.37) and 2 or more key performance indices (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.68) compared with the control group. For attainment of 2 or more primary targets, larger effects were observed among patients in low- and middle-income countries (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.29-1.74) compared with high-income countries (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.39) (P = .04).
Conclusions and Relevance: In this 12-month clinical trial, the use of information and communications technology and nurses to empower and engage patients did not change the number of clinical events but did reduce cardiometabolic risk factors among patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those in low- and middle-income countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01631084.
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.
FUNDING: Nil.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was carried out on 293 patients without a prior history of diabetes at a primary care clinic in Malaysia. Questions on body mass index and waist circumference were modified based on the Asian standard in ModAsian FINDRISC. Haemoglobin A1c of ≥6.5% (48 mmol/mol) was used to diagnose diabetes. Areas under the receiver operating curve (ROC-AUC) for FINDRISC and ModAsian FINDRISC were analyzed.
RESULTS: The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes was 7.5% and prediabetes was 32.8%. The ROC-AUC of FINDRISC was 0.76 (undiagnosed diabetes) and 0.79 (dysglycaemia). There was no statistical difference between FINDRISC and ModAsian FINDRISC. The recommended optimal FINDRISC cut-off point for undiagnosed diabetes was ≥11 (Sensitivity 86.4%, Specificity 48.7%). FINDRISC ≥11 point has higher sensitivity compared to USPSTF criteria (72.7%) and higher specificity compared to the ADA (9.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: FINDRISC is a useful diabetes screening tool to identify those at risk of diabetes in primary care in Malaysia.