METHODS: Eleven experienced cardiologists from across the Asia-Pacific countries participated in two rounds of the survey. In the first round, experts were asked to rate agreement/disagreement with 35 statements across seven domains regarding the use of β-blockers for treating hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery diseases, co-morbidities, as well as their safety profile, usage pattern, and pharmacokinetic variability. A consensus for a statement could be reached with >70% agreement.

RESULTS: Except for seven statements, all attained consensus in the first round. In the second round that was conducted virtually, the experts re-appraised their ratings for the seven statements along with a critical appraisal of two additional statements that were suggested by experts in the preceding round. At the end of the second round, the final version included 36 statements (34 original statements, two statements suggested by experts, and the omission of one statement that did not attain consensus). The final version of statements in the second round was disseminated among experts for their approval followed by manuscript development.

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.

METHODS: Oxy-PICU was a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 15 UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Children admitted as an emergency, who were older than 38 weeks corrected gestational age and younger than 16 years receiving invasive ventilation and supplemental oxygen were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio via a concealed, central, web-based randomisation system to conservative peripheral oxygen saturations ([SpO2] 88-92%) or liberal (SpO2 >94%) targets. The primary outcome was the duration of organ support at 30 days following random allocation, a rank-based endpoint with death either on or before day 30 as the worst outcome (a score equating to 31 days of organ support), with survivors assigned a score between 1 and 30 depending on the number of calendar days of organ support received. The primary effect estimate was the probabilistic index, a value greater than 0·5 indicating more than 50% probability that conservative oxygenation is superior to liberal oxygenation for a randomly selected patient. All participants in whom consent was available were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The completed study was registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN92103439).

FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2020, and May 15, 2022, 2040 children were randomly allocated to conservative or liberal oxygenation groups. Consent was available for 1872 (92%) of 2040 children. The conservative oxygenation group comprised 939 children (528 [57%] of 927 were female and 399 [43%] of 927 were male) and the liberal oxygenation group included 933 children (511 [56%] of 920 were female and 409 [45%] of 920 were male). Duration of organ support or death in the first 30 days was significantly lower in the conservative oxygenation group (probabilistic index 0·53, 95% CI 0·50-0·55; p=0·04 Wilcoxon rank-sum test, adjusted odds ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·99]). Prespecified adverse events were reported in 24 (3%) of 939 patients in the conservative oxygenation group and 36 (4%) of 933 patients in the liberal oxygenation group.

INTERPRETATION: Among invasively ventilated children who were admitted as an emergency to a PICU receiving supplemental oxygen, a conservative oxygenation target resulted in a small, but significant, greater probability of a better outcome in terms of duration of organ support at 30 days or death when compared with a liberal oxygenation target. Widespread adoption of a conservative oxygenation saturation target (SpO2 88-92%) could help improve outcomes and reduce costs for the sickest children admitted to PICUs.