Patient and Physician Perspectives on the Use of a Connected Ecosystem for Diabetes Management: International Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and their health care teams is important for optimal control of the disease and outcomes. Digital technologies could potentially tie together several health care-related devices and platforms into connected ecosystems (CES), but attitudes about CES are unknown. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed convenience samples of patients and physicians to better understand which patient characteristics are associated with higher likelihoods of (1) participating in a potential CES program, as self-reported by patients with T2DM and (2) clinical benefit from participation in a potential CES program, as reported by physicians. METHODS: Adults self-reporting a diagnosis of T2DM and current insulin use (n=197), and 33 physicians whose practices included ≥20% of such patients, were enrolled in the United States, France, and Germany. We surveyed both groups about the likelihood of patient participation in a CES. We then examined the associations between patients' clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and this likelihood. We also described characteristics of patients likely to clinically benefit from CES use, according to physicians. RESULTS: Compared with patients in Germany and France, US patients were younger (mean age 45.3 [SD 11.9] years vs 61.9 [SD 9.2] and 65.8 [SD 9.4] years, respectively), more often female, more highly educated, and more often working full-time. In all, 51 (44.7%) US patients, 16 (36.4%) German patients, and 18 (46.3%) French patients indicated strong interest in a CES program, and 115 (78.7%) reported currently using ≥1 connected device or app. However, physicians believed that only 11.3%-19.2% of their patients were using connected devices or apps to manage their disease. Physicians also reported infrequently recommending or prescribing connected devices to their patients, although ≥80% (n=28) of them thought that a CES could help support their patients in managing their disease. The factors most predictive of patient likelihood of participating in a CES program were cost, inclusion of medication reminders, and linking blood glucose levels to behaviors such as eating and exercise. In all countries, the most common patient expectations for a CES program were that it could help them eat more healthfully, increase their physical activity, increase their understanding of how blood glucose relates to behavior such as exercise and eating, and reduce stress. Physicians thought that newly diagnosed patients, sicker patients-those who had been hospitalized for diabetes, were currently using insulin, or who had any comorbid condition-and patients who were nonadherent to treatment were most likely to benefit from CES use. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, there was a high degree of interest in the future use of CES, although additional education is needed among both patients with T2DM and their physicians to achieve the full potential of such systems to improve self-management and clinical care for the disease.

High Prevalence of Depressive Symptoms in Patients With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in Developing Countries: Results From the International Diabetes Management Practices Study.

OBJECTIVE: Depression is common in people with diabetes, but data from developing countries are scarce. We evaluated the prevalence and risk factors for depressive symptoms in patients with diabetes using data from the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: IDMPS is an ongoing multinational, cross-sectional study investigating quality of care in patients with diabetes in real-world settings. Data from wave 5 (2011), including 21 countries, were analyzed using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to evaluate depressive symptoms. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify risk factors of depressive symptoms. RESULTS: Of 9,865 patients eligible for analysis, 2,280 had type 1 and 7,585 had type 2 diabetes (treatment: oral glucose-lowering drugs [OGLD] only, n = 4,729; OGLDs plus insulin, n = 1,892; insulin only, n = 964). Depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 score ≥5) were reported in 30.7% of those with type 1 diabetes. In patients with type 2 diabetes, the respective figures were 29.0% for OGLDs-only, 36.6% for OGLDs-plus-insulin, and 46.7% for insulin-only subgroups. Moderate depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 score 10-19) were observed in 8-16% of patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Female sex, complications, and low socioeconomic status were independently associated with depressive symptoms. In type 1 diabetes and in the type 2 diabetes OGLDs-only group, depression was associated with poor glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms are common in patients with diabetes from developing countries, calling for routine screening, especially in high-risk groups, to reduce the double burden of diabetes and depression and their negative interaction.

One in Seven Insulin-Treated Patients in Developing Countries Reported Poor Persistence with Insulin Therapy: Real World Evidence from the Cross-Sectional International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS).

INTRODUCTION: Although poor adherence to insulin is widely recognised, periodic discontinuation of insulin may cause more severe hyperglycaemia than poor adherence. We assessed persistence with insulin therapy in patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) in developing countries and the reasons for insulin discontinuation. METHODS: The International Diabetes Management Practices Study collected real-world data from developing countries in seven waves between 2005 and 2017. In Wave 7 (2016-2017), we asked adult patients with T1D and insulin-treated T2D to report whether they had ever discontinued insulin, the estimated duration of discontinuation and underlying reasons. RESULTS: Among 8303 patients recruited from 24 countries by 620 physicians, 4596 were insulin-treated (T1D: 2000; T2D: 2596). In patients with T1D, 14.0% (95% CI: 12.5-15.6) reported having self-discontinued insulin for a median duration of 1.0 month (IQR: 0.5, 3.5). The respective figures in patients with T2D were 13.7% (12.4-15.1) and 2.0 months (IQR: 1.0, 6.0). The main reasons for discontinuation were impact on social life (T1D: 41.0%; T2D: 30.5%), cost of medications and test strips (T1D: 34.4%; T2D: 24.5%), fear of hypoglycaemia (T1D: 26.7%; T2D: 28.0%) and lack of support (T1D: 26.4%; T2D: 25.9%). Other factors included age < 40 years, non-university education and short disease duration (T1D: ≤ 1 year; T2D: > 1-≤ 5 years). Patients with T1D who did not perform self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or self-adjust their insulin dosage, and patients with T1D or T2D without glucose meters were less likely to persist with insulin. Nearly 50% of patients who reported poor persistence had HbA1c > 75 mmol/mol (> 9%) and > 50% of physicians recommended diabetes education programmes to improve treatment persistence. CONCLUSION: In developing countries, poor persistence with insulin is common among insulin-treated patients, supporting calls for urgent actions to ensure easy access to insulin, tools for SMBG and education.

Screening, prevalence, treatment and control of kidney disease in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in low-to-middle-income countries (2005-2017): the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS).

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney disease worldwide. There is limited information on screening, treatment and control of kidney disease in patients with diabetes in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: The International Diabetes Management Practices Study is an ongoing, non-interventional study of clinical profiles and practices among patients receiving outpatient care mainly by internal medicine physicians and endocrinologists in LMICs. We examined screening, prevalence, treatment and control of kidney disease across seven waves (W) of data collection between 2005 and 2017. RESULTS: Among 15,079 patients with type 1 and 66,088 patients with type 2 diabetes, screening for kidney disease increased between W2 and W3 followed by a plateau (type 1 diabetes: W2, 73.7%; W3, 84.1%; W7, 83.4%; type 2 diabetes: W2, 65.1%; W3, 82.6%; W7, 86.2%). There were also decreasing proportions of patients with microalbuminuria (type 1 diabetes: W1, 27.1%; W3, 14.7%; W7, 13.8%; type 2 diabetes: W1, 24.5%; W3, 12.6%; W7, 11.9%) and proteinuria (type 1 diabetes: W1, 14.2%; W3, 8.7%; W7, 8.2%; type 2 diabetes: W1, 15.6%; W3, 9.3%; W7, 7.6%). Fewer patients were reported as receiving dialysis for both type 1 diabetes (W2, 1.4%; W7, 0.3%) and type 2 diabetes (W2, 0.9%; W7, 0.2%) over time. While there was no change in mean HbA1c or prevalence of diagnosed hypertension (type 1 diabetes: W1, 22.7%; W7, 19.9%; type 2 diabetes: W1, 60.9%; W7, 66.2%), the use of statins had increased among patients diagnosed with dyslipidaemia (type 1 diabetes: W1, 77.7%; W7, 90.7%; type 2 diabetes: W1, 78.6%; W7, 94.7%). Angiotensin II receptor blockers (type 1 diabetes: W1, 18.0%; W7, 30.6%; type 2 diabetes: W1, 24.2%; W7, 43.6%) were increasingly used over ACE inhibitors after W1 (type 1 diabetes: W1, 65.0%; W7, 55.9%; type 2 diabetes: W1, 55.7%, W7, 41.1%) among patients diagnosed with hypertension. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In LMICs, real-world data suggest improvement in screening and treatment for kidney disease in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes attending non-nephrology clinics. This was accompanied by decreasing proportions of patients with microalbuminuria and proteinuria, with fewer patients who reported receiving dialysis over a 12-year period.

Correction to: Persistent poor glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes in developing countries: 12 years of real-world evidence of the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS).

Unfortunately, the standard deviations for 'last HbA1c measurement' in mmol/mol were miscalculated in Table 1 of this paper.

Persistent poor glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes in developing countries: 12 years of real-world evidence of the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS).

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We evaluated the secular trend of glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes in developing countries, where data are limited. METHODS: The International Diabetes Management Practices Study provides real-world evidence of patient profiles and diabetes care practices in developing countries in seven cross-sectional waves (2005-2017). At each wave, each physician collected data from ten consecutive participants with type 2 diabetes during a 2 week period. The primary objective of this analysis was to evaluate trends of glycaemic control over time. RESULTS: A total of 66,088 individuals with type 2 diabetes were recruited by 6099 physicians from 49 countries. The proportion of participants with HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7%) decreased from 36% in wave 1 (2005) to 30.1% in wave 7 (2017) (p < 0.0001). Compared with wave 1, the adjusted ORs of attaining HbA1c ≤64 mmol/mol (≤8%) decreased significantly in waves 2, 5, 6 and 7 (p < 0.05). Over 80% of participants received oral glucose-lowering drugs, with declining use of sulfonylureas. Insulin use increased from 32.8% (wave 1) to 41.2% (wave 7) (p < 0.0001). The corresponding time to insulin initiation (mean ± SD) changed from 8.4 ± 6.9 in wave 1 to 8.3 ± 6.6 years in wave 7, while daily insulin dosage ranged from 0.39 ± 0.21 U/kg (wave 1) to 0.33 ± 0.19 U/kg (wave 7) for basal regimen and 0.70 ± 0.34 U/kg (wave 1) to 0.77 ± 0.33 (wave 7) U/kg for basal-bolus regimen. An increasing proportion of participants had ≥2 HbA1c measurements within 12 months of enrolment (from 61.8% to 92.9%), and the proportion of participants receiving diabetes education (mainly delivered by physicians) also increased from 59.0% to 78.3%. CONCLUSIONS: In developing countries, glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes remained suboptimal over a 12 year period, indicating a need for system changes and better organisation of care to improve self-management and attainment of treatment goals.

Impact of diabetes education and self-management on the quality of care for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus in the Middle East (the International Diabetes Mellitus Practices Study, IDMPS).

AIMS: Self-management (self-monitoring of blood glucose, plus self-adjustment of insulin dose) is important in diabetes care, but its complexity presents a barrier to wider implementation, which hinders attainment and maintenance of glycemic targets. More evidence on self-management is needed to increase its implementation and improve metabolic outcomes. METHODS: Data from 1316 participants with type 1 diabetes mellitus who were enrolled from Middle East countries into the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS), a multinational observational survey, were analyzed to assess the impact of education on disease management and outcomes. RESULTS: A majority (78%) of participants failed to achieve glycemic target (HbA1c < 7.0% [<53 mmol/mol]). Participants who had received diabetes education (59%) were more likely to practice self-management than those who had not (odds ratio [OR]: 2.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-3.69; p < 0.001), and those who practiced self-management were more likely to attain target HbA1c than those who did not (OR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.06-2.09; p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: These relationships between diabetes education, self-management and glycemic control suggest that diabetes education provides knowledge and skills to optimize self-management, favoring HbA1c target attainment. Middle East health authorities should search for ways to facilitate access to diabetes education to optimize treatment outcomes.

Diabetes education and health insurance: How they affect the quality of care provided to people with type 1 diabetes in Latin America. Data from the International Diabetes Mellitus Practices Study (IDMPS).

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of diabetes education and access to healthcare coverage on disease management and outcomes in Latin America. METHODS: Data were obtained from a sub-analysis of 2693 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus recruited from 9 Latin American countries as part of the International Diabetes Mellitus Practices Study (IDMPS), a multinational, observational survey of diabetes treatment in developing regions. RESULTS: Results from the Latin American cohort show that only 25% of participants met HbA1c target value (< 7% [53 mmol/mol]). Attainment of this target was significantly higher among participants who had received diabetes education than those who hadn't (28% vs. 19%, p < 0.001), and among those who practiced self-management (27% vs. 21% no self-management, p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that participants who had received diabetes education were more likely to manage their diabetes (OR:1.65 [95% CI: 1.24, 2.19]; p = 0.001), and to attain HbA1c target values (OR:1.48 [95% CI: 1.14, 1.93]; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Given the association between uncontrolled diabetes and long-term complications, health authorities and care providers should increase efforts to ensure widespread healthcare coverage and access to self-management education to reduce the socioeconomic and humanistic burden of type 1 diabetes.

Multifaceted determinants for achieving glycemic control: the International Diabetes Management Practice Study (IDMPS).

OBJECTIVE: The International Diabetes Mellitus Practice Study is a 5-year survey documenting changes in diabetes treatment practice in developing regions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors for achieving A1C <7% in 11,799 patients (1,898 type 1 diabetic and 9,901 type 2 diabetic) recruited by 937 physicians from 17 countries in Eastern Europe (n = 3,519), Asia (n = 5,888), Latin America (n = 2,116), and Africa (n = 276). RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of type 1 diabetic and 36% of type 2 diabetic patients never had A1C measurements. In those with values for A1C, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol, 7.5% of type 1 diabetic (n = 696) and 3.6% of type 2 diabetic (n = 3,896) patients attained all three recommended targets (blood pressure <130/80 mmHg, LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl, and A1C <7%). Self-monitoring of blood glucose was the only predictor for achieving the A1C goal in type 1 diabetes (odds ratios: Asia 2.24, Latin America 3.55, and Eastern Europe 2.42). In type 2 diabetes, short disease duration (Asia 0.97, Latin America 0.97, and Eastern Europe 0.82) and treatment with few oral glucose-lowering drugs (Asia 0.64, Latin America 0.76, and Eastern Europe 0.62) were predictors. Other region-specific factors included lack of microvascular complications and old age in Latin America and Asia; health insurance coverage and specialist care in Latin America; lack of obesity and self-adjustment of insulin dosages in Asia; and training by a diabetes educator, self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients who self-adjusted insulin, and lack of macrovascular complications in Eastern Europe. CONCLUSIONS: In developing countries, factors pertinent to patients, doctors, and health care systems all impact on glycemic control.