Effects of a Technology-Assisted Integrated Diabetes Care Program on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in the Asia-Pacific Region: The JADE Program Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many health care systems lack the efficiency, preparedness, or resources needed to address the increasing number of patients with type 2 diabetes, especially in low- and middle-income countries. 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.

Effects of vildagliptin relative to sulfonylureas in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan: influence of age and treatment with/without metformin in the VIRTUE study.

BACKGROUND: VIRTUE was a prospective, observational study assessing the effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin vs sulfonylureas (SUs) (both as monotherapy and in combination with metformin) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who fasted during Ramadan. A post hoc analysis was carried out to assess the effect of treatment with/without metformin and age (<65 years or ≥65 years). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were recruited from the Middle East and Asia. The primary end point was proportion of patients with one or more hypoglycemic event (HE) during Ramadan. Secondary end points included change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body weight, and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 684 patients received vildagliptin and 631 received SUs. Most patients received dual therapy with metformin (n=1,148) and were aged <65 years (n=1,189). A few patients experienced one or more HE with vildagliptin vs SU monotherapy (6.5% vs 14.5%) and with vildagliptin + metformin vs SUs + metformin (5.3% vs 20.6%); the latter achieved statistical significance (P<0.001) in both age subgroups (<65 years: 5.5% vs 18.4%, P<0.001; ≥65 years: 2.8% vs 30.9%, P<0.001). Vildagliptin was associated with numerically greater HbA1c and body weight reductions vs SUs, regardless of the therapy type or age. A higher proportion of SU- vs vildagliptin-treated patients experienced adverse events across all subgroups. CONCLUSION: A few patients experienced HEs with vildagliptin vs SUs regardless of age, and in patients on dual therapy. Vildagliptin ± metformin was also associated with good glycemic and weight control and was well tolerated. Vildagliptin might be a useful treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, particularly high-risk populations such as the elderly fasting during Ramadan.