Barriers to the delivery of optimal antidiabetic therapy in the Middle East and Africa.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increasing worldwide, but developing nations will bear a disproportionate share of this burden. Countries in the Middle East and Africa are in a state of transition, where marked disparities of income and access to education and healthcare exist, and where the relatively young populations are being exposed increasingly to processes of urbanisation and adverse changes in diet that are fuelling the diabetes epidemic. Optimising diabetes care in these nations is crucial, to minimise the future burden of complications of diabetes. METHODS: We have reviewed the barriers to effective diabetes care with special relevance to countries in this region. RESULTS: The effects of antidiabetic treatments themselves are unlikely to differ importantly in the region compared with elsewhere, but economic inequalities within countries restrict access to newer treatments, in particular. Values relating to family life and religion are important modifiers of the physician-patient interaction. Also, a lack of understanding of diabetes and its treatments by both physicians and patients requires more and better diabetes education, delivered by suitably qualified health educators. Finally, sub-optimal processes for delivery of care have contributed to a lack of proper provision of testing and follow-up of patients in many countries. CONCLUSION: Important barriers to the delivery of optimal diabetes care exist in the Middle East and Africa.

Barriers to the delivery of diabetes care in the Middle East and South Africa: a survey of 1,082 practising physicians in five countries.

AIMS: Developing countries face a high and growing burden of type 2 diabetes. We surveyed physicians in a diverse range of countries in the Middle East and Africa (Egypt, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, South Africa and Lebanon) with regard to their perceptions of barriers to type 2 diabetes care identified as potentially important in the literature and by the authors. METHODS: One thousand and eighty-two physicians completed a questionnaire developed by the authors. RESULTS: Most physicians enrolled in the study employed guideline-driven care; 80-100% of physicians prescribed metformin (with lifestyle intervention, where there are no contraindications) for newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, with lifestyle intervention alone used where metformin was not prescribed. Sulfonylureas were prescribed widely, consistent with the poor economic status of many patients. About one quarter of physicians were not undertaking any form of continuing medical education, and relatively low proportions of practices had their own diabetes educators, dieticians or diabetic foot specialists. Physicians identified the deficiencies of their patients (unhealthy lifestyles, lack of education and poor diet) as the most important barriers to optimal diabetes care. Low-treatment compliance was not ranked highly. Access to physicians did not appear to be a problem, as most patients were seen multiple times per year. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians in the Middle East and South Africa identified limitations relating to their patients as the main barrier to delivering care for diabetes, without giving high priority to issues relating to processes of care delivery. Further study would be needed to ascertain whether these findings reflect an unduly physician-centred view of their practice. More effective provision of services relating to the prevention of complications and improved lifestyles may be needed.

The effect of vildagliptin relative to sulphonylureas in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan: the VIRTUE study.

AIMS: To assess, in a real-world setting, the effect of vildagliptin compared with sulphonylurea (SU) treatment on hypoglycaemia in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) fasting during Ramadan. METHODS: This multinational, non-interventional study, conducted in Asia and the Middle East, included Muslim adult patients with T2DM who received treatment with vildagliptin or SU as add-on to metformin or monotherapy. During a ~16-week observation period, data were collected up to 6 weeks before and 6 weeks after Ramadan fasting. The primary study objective was to compare the proportion of patients with ≥ 1 hypoglycaemic event (HE) during fasting. RESULTS: Of > 1300 patients enrolled in the study, 684 were treated with vildagliptin and 631 with SUs. Significantly fewer patients experienced ≥ 1 HE with vildagliptin compared with those receiving SUs (5.4% vs. 19.8%, respectively; p < 0.001); no vildagliptin-treated patients reported a grade 2 HE, vs. 4 SU-treated patients (p = 0.053). Mean HbA1c changes from baseline were vildagliptin: -0.24%, SUs: +0.02% (p < 0.001). Mean body weight reductions from baseline were vildagliptin: -0.76 kg, SUs: -0.13 kg (p < 0.001). A higher proportion of SU-treated patients experienced adverse events (AEs) compared with vildagliptin (22.8% vs. 10.2%). This difference was driven by hypoglycaemia as the most common AE. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study of fasting Muslim patients with T2DM, vildagliptin was associated with significantly fewer hypoglycaemic episodes compared with SU therapy. This outcome is particularly meaningful when viewed in the context of good glycaemic and weight control observed in vildagliptin-treated patients. Vildagliptin was well tolerated in this patient population.

Optimising the medical management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes in the Middle East: pivotal role of metformin.

AIMS: Increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes will likely be greater in the Middle East and other developing countries than in most other regions during the coming two decades, placing a heavy burden on regional healthcare resources. METHODOLOGY: Medline search, examination of data from major epidemiological studies in the Middle Eastern countries. RESULTS: The aetiology and pathophysiology of diabetes appears comparable in Middle Eastern and other populations. Lifestyle intervention is key to the management of diabetes in all type 2 diabetes patients, who should be encouraged strongly to diet and exercise. The options for pharmacologic therapy in the management of diabetes have increased recently, particularly the number of potential antidiabetic combinations. Metformin appears to be used less frequently to initiate antidiabetic therapy in the Middle East than in other countries. Available clinical evidence, supported by current guidelines, strongly favours the initiation of antidiabetic therapy with metformin in Middle Eastern type 2 diabetes patients, where no contraindications exist. This is due to its equivalent or greater efficacy relative to other oral antidiabetic treatments, its proven tolerability and safety profiles, its weight neutrality, the lack of clinically significant hypoglycaemia, the demonstration of cardiovascular protection for metformin relative to diet in the UK Prospective Diabetes Study and in observational studies, and its low cost. Additional treatments should be added to metformin and lifestyle intervention as diabetes progresses, until patients are receiving an intensive insulin regimen with or without additional oral agents. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence base strongly favours the initiation of antidiabetic therapy with metformin, where no contraindications exist. However, metformin may be under-prescribed in the Middle East.