Responsible Use of Oral Corticosteroids in People with Comorbid Diabetes: An Expert Consensus.

Globally, diabetes mellitus (DM) is a substantial contributor to morbidity and mortality. Comorbidities and intercurrent illnesses in people with diabetes may necessitate the use of steroids. Acute as well as chronic use of steroids contributes substantially to the development of various complications. Despite this, there are no standard guidelines or consensus to provide a unified approach for the rational use of steroids in people with diabetes. Also, there is scant harmonization among clinicians with the use of different steroids in routine practice. To address the inconsistencies in this clinical arena, the consensus working group (CWG) formulated a unified consensus for steroid use in people with diabetes. In people with diabetes, the use of steroids causes hyperglycemia and may precipitate diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). An increase in weight is directly related to the dose and duration of the steroid therapy. Steroid-related alterations in hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and hypertension (HTN) add to the increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease. The risk of complications such as infections, osteoporosis, myopathy, acne, cataracts, and glaucoma may increase with the use of steroids. Appropriate and timely monitoring of these complications is necessary for early detection and treatment of such complications. Given the systemic effects of various antihyperglycemic drugs, there is a possibility of aggravating or diminishing the specific complications. Preference to a safer steroid is required matching the steroid dose equivalence and individualizing patient management. In conclusion, short-, intermediate-, or long-term use of steroids in people with diabetes demands their rational use and holistic approach to identify, monitor, and treat the complications induced or aggravated by the steroids.

Retrospective Observational Study on Assessing Sitagliptin and Dapagliflozin as a Fixed-Dose Combination in the Indian Population With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The SIDAXA Study.

Introduction Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a prevalent chronic metabolic disorder, necessitates multifaceted treatment approaches. Emerging studies highlight the cardiovascular advantages of sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in T2DM. This investigation delves into the synergistic effects of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) of sitagliptin and dapagliflozin, offering insights into its safety and efficacy for the Indian population. Methods This real-world, retrospective, observational study spanned 328 cases across 111 Indian centres, evaluating the safety, efficacy, and clinical utilization of the sitagliptin and dapagliflozin FDC in T2DM patients after obtaining ethical approval. Assessments at baseline, week four, and week 12 encompassed hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial blood glucose (PPBG), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and weight change. The statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29.0.1.0(171) (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) with a significance level p<0.05. Results Study participants [mean age: 51.14±5.55 years, 77.74% (n=255) males, 22.26% (n=73) females] exhibited prevalent risk factors like sedentary lifestyle (n=167, 50.91%) and smoking (n=147, 44.82%). Comorbidities included hypertension (n=235, 71.65%) and dyslipidaemia (n=139, 42.38%). Metformin (n=282, 85.98%) and sulfonylurea (n=134, 40.85%) were commonly prescribed concomitant oral antidiabetic agents (OADs). FDC administration significantly reduced HbA1c by 1.05 ± 0.83% (p < 0.0001) at week 12. FPG and PPBG showed significant reductions of 22.98 ± 22.23 mg/dL (p < 0.0001), 165.50 ± 37.02 mg/dL and 40.94 ± 36.04 mg/dL (p < 0.0001) at four weeks respectively. By week 12, significant reductions were noted in SBP (14.61±13.98mmHg reduction, p-value <0.0001), DBP (7.80±8.45mmHg reduction, p-value <0.0001), and LDL-C levels (18.14±23.95 mg/dL reduction, p-value <0.0001). In patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was reduction in HbA1c levels by 1.02 ± 0.63% after 12 weeks, with FPG decreasing by 54.52 ± 32.67 mg/dL and PPBG decreasing by 88.73 ± 44.90 mg/dL. Treatment-emergent adverse events included headache, changes in micturition, genital mycotic infection, and nausea and diarrhoea which were mild, transient, and necessitated no treatment discontinuation. Conclusion The FDC of sitagliptin and dapagliflozin significantly improved glycaemic control and lipid profiles in T2DM patients, particularly those with coronary artery disease. It demonstrated a favourable safety profile in the Indian population, signifying its potential as an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option in patients with established cardiovascular disease.

LIVE INDIA: Effectiveness of Gla-100 in a Post hoc Pooled Analysis of FINE ASIA and GOAL Registries.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world evidence on insulin glargine 100 U/ml (Gla-100) initiation in Indian type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) individuals is limited. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Gla-100 in insulin-naïve T2DM participants from India. METHODS: This post hoc analysis includes real-world data of insulin-naïve Indian participants with T2DM who started Gla-100 treatment in two Asian registries: FINE ASIA and GOAL. Changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, insulin dose, and incidence of hypoglycemia from baseline to 6 months were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 955 participants with T2DM were identified and analyzed. The mean [standard deviation (SD)] age and duration of diabetes were 54.7 (9.8) years and 9.8 (6.3) years, respectively. Mean HbA1c and FPG were significantly reduced after 6 months of Gla-100 treatment [- 2.07 (1.4) %; - 94.4 (65.2) mg/dl, respectively]. HbA1c targets of < 7.0% and < 7.5% were achieved by 292 (30.6%) and 589 (61.7%) study participants, respectively. The overall incidence of hypoglycemia was low (n = 52; 5.4%); only two participants (0.2%) reported severe hypoglycemia. Insulin was titrated with a mean (SD) increment of 2.5 (5.6) U/day after 6 months, leading to a mean Gla-100 dose of 18.2 (8.9) U/day. Mean body weight remained unchanged from baseline to 6 months (- 0.1 kg). CONCLUSION: In routine clinical practice, Gla-100 significantly improved glycemic parameters after 6 months of treatment with a low risk of hypoglycemia and no weight change in participants with T2DM.

Intermittent Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A New Paradigm in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: To suggest how continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) may be used intermittently in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The use of CGM is largely in those with type 1 diabetes (T1D), in whom it makes sense to use CGM continuously as CGM provides a valuable tool to not only adjust their insulin doses but also to match it with their diet, physical activity, and other lifestyle modifications. In the case of T2D, however, especially for those not on insulin, the use of CGM may not be needed on a continuous basis. The use of CGM on an intermittent basis is rarely discussed in the literature. This article tries to provide clinical situations where CGM can be used intermittently. RESULTS: Intermittent use of CGM defined as the "use of CGM once in 2 or 3 months or a fixed frequency," and may be useful in several situations in those with T2D. We suggest the following indications for the intermittent use of CGM in T2D-newly diagnosed patients where treatment is being started, uncontrolled diabetes where treatment is being altered, starting intensive lifestyle modification, during infections, during preoperative control, in children and adolescents with T2D, as a motivational tool to improve behavioral modification, after metabolic surgery, and in patients on steroids, apart from other indications. CONCLUSION: Intermittent use of CGM in T2D can be useful in special situations and can also be cost saving particularly in resource-constrained regions of the world.

Tirzepatide versus insulin glargine as second-line or third-line therapy in type 2 diabetes in the Asia-Pacific region: the SURPASS-AP-Combo trial.

Tirzepatide is a once-weekly GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist. In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, insulin-naive adults (≥18 years of age) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on metformin (with or without a sulphonylurea) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to weekly tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg or daily insulin glargine at 66 hospitals in China, South Korea, Australia and India. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of mean change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 40 after treatment with 10 mg and 15 mg of tirzepatide. Key secondary endpoints included non-inferiority and superiority of all tirzepatide doses in HbA1c reduction, proportions of patients achieving HbA1c < 7.0% and weight loss at week 40. A total of 917 patients (763 (83.2%) in China) were randomized to tirzepatide 5 mg (n = 230), 10 mg (n = 228) or 15 mg (n = 229) or insulin glargine (n = 230). All doses of tirzepatide were non-inferior and superior to insulin glargine for least squares mean (s.e.) reduction in HbA1c from baseline to week 40: tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg and 15 mg, -2.24% (0.07), -2.44% (0.07) and -2.49% (0.07), respectively, and insulin glargine, -0.95% (0.07), with a treatment difference ranging from -1.29% to -1.54% (all P < 0.001). Proportions of patients achieving HbA1c < 7.0% at week 40 were greater in tirzepatide 5-mg (75.4%), 10-mg (86.0%) and 15-mg (84.4%) groups compared to insulin glargine (23.7%) (all P < 0.001). All tirzepatide doses led to superior body weight reduction at week 40: tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg and 15 mg, -5.0 kg (-6.5%), -7.0 kg (-9.3%) and -7.2 kg (-9.4%), respectively, compared to insulin glargine, 1.5 kg (+2.1%) (all P < 0.001). The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were mild to moderate decreased appetite, diarrhea and nausea. No severe hypoglycemia was reported. Tirzepatide demonstrated superior reductions in HbA1c versus insulin glargine in an Asia-Pacific, predominately Chinese, population with T2D and was generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04093752 .

Expert Consensus Recommendations on Time in Range for Monitoring Glucose Levels in People with Diabetes: An Indian Perspective.

Keeping up with the global scenario, diabetes prevalence is on rise in India. Inadequate glycemic control is a major cause of diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. The conventional standards of care (SOC) in diabetes, including self-monitoring of blood glucose and measurement of glycated hemoglobin, have supported achievement of glycemic control, yet there are a few limitations. With the use of current technologies and metrics, such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and standardized CGM data reporting, the continuous real-time glucose levels can be measured, and importantly, the percentage of time above, below, and within the target glucose range can be calculated, which facilitates patient-centric care, a current goal in diabetes management. International consensus recommendations endorse the incorporation of CGM and CGM data reporting in SOC for diabetes management. The guidelines provide time in range (TIR) thresholds for different patient populations and different types of diabetes. However, extrapolation of these global guidelines does not aptly cover the Indian population, which has diverse diet, culture, and religious practices. In this context, a consensus meeting was held in India in 2021 with experts in the field of diabetes care. The purpose of the meeting was to develop consensus recommendations for TIR thresholds for different patient profiles in India. Those expert recommendations, together with an evidence-based review, are reported here. The aim of this agreement is to aid clinicians across India to routinely use CGM and CGM data reports for optimizing individualized diabetes care, by implementing clinical targets for TIR.

Sodium-glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors in Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The available evidence was systematically reviewed to evaluate the effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (SGLT2i) on cardiovascular (CV) and renal outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or multiple risk factors (MRF), with or without heart failure (HF), and per estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) rate at baseline. METHODS: We comprehensively searched three electronic databases to retrieve publications up to 30th November 2019, which were screened for inclusion. The data extracted for the outcomes according to baseline ASCVD, HF, and eGFR levels were meta-analyzed using fixed effects model. RESULTS: Of the 735 screened citations, 15 primary and secondary publications from five CV or renal outcome trials were included. SGLT2is reduced the risk of CV death or hospitalization for HF (HHF), HHF alone, and composite renal-specific outcome, irrespective of ASCVD and HF at baseline. The three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE) risk was reduced by 14% (p<0.001) in patients with ASCVD and by 10% (p = 0.018) in those without baseline HF compared with their counterparts. SGLT2is significantly reduced the risk of MACE (18%) in patients with mild kidney dysfunction (eGFR within the range of 60-<90 mL/min/1.73 m2 and <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 ). CONCLUSION: SGLT2is are effective for both secondary and primary prevention of composite CV outcomes, and secondary prevention of MACE. The upcoming evidence may strengthen the primary prevention benefits of SGLT2is.

First-in-Class Oral Semaglutide: Overcoming Barriers of Incretinisation in the Indian Context.

Despite the availability of multiple therapeutic options and strategies, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) the world over have inadequate glycaemic control and India is no exception. Patients with T2DM in India have benefitted from glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues similar to that of patients from other parts of the world. However, subcutaneous treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) is limited by their injectable mode of administration. The present review highlights barriers to incretinisation with GLP-1RAs and the role of first-in-class oral semaglutide in the Indian context and provides guidance to physicians on its initiation and uses.

Prescribing Patterns and Response to Antihyperglycemic Agents Among Novel Clusters of Type 2 Diabetes in Asian Indians.

Aim: To assess the prescribing patterns and response to different classes of antihyperglycemic agents in novel clusters of type 2 diabetes (T2D) described in India. Materials and Methods: We attempted to replicate the earlier described clusters of T2D, in 32,867 individuals with new-onset T2D (within 2 years of diagnosis) registered between October 2013 and December 2020 at 15 diabetes clinics located across India, by means of k-means clustering utilizing 6 clinically relevant variables. Individuals who had follow-up glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) up to 2 years were included for the drug response analysis (n = 13,247). Results: Among the 32,867 participants included in the study, 20,779 (63.2%) were males. The average age at diagnosis was 45 years and mean HbA1c at baseline was 8.9%. The same four clusters described in India earlier were replicated. Forty percent of the study participants belonged to the mild age-related diabetes cluster, followed by insulin-resistant obese diabetes (27%), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (21%), and combined insulin-resistant and insulin-deficient diabetes (12%) clusters. The most frequently used antihyperglycemic agents were sulfonylureas, metformin, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors apart from insulin. While there were significant differences in HbA1c reduction between drugs across clusters, these were largely driven by differences in the baseline (pretreatment) HbA1c. Conclusions: In this new cohort, we were able to reliably replicate the four subtypes of T2D earlier described in Asian Indians. Prescribing patterns show limited usage of newer antihyperglycemic agents across all clusters. Randomized clinical trials are required to establish differential drug responses between clusters.

Efficacy of a Combination of Metformin and Vildagliptin in Comparison to Metformin Alone in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Multicentre, Retrospective, Real-World Evidence Study.

BACKGROUND: Early use of combination therapy in diabetes patients may lead to sustained glycemic control and thereby reduce the progression of diabetic complications. Given the limitation of the traditional stepwise intensification strategy, early combination therapy can be an effective approach. Therefore, this study aims to assess the real-world efficacy of a combination of metformin and vildagliptin in comparison to metformin alone in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in India. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, non-interventional study based on electronic medical records (EMRs) of 2740 T2DM patients, retrieved from 2010 onwards from 22 diabetes centres across India. Adult drug naïve patients with a 5-year history of T2DM treated with either metformin or a combination of metformin and vildagliptin for at least 3 months were considered for this study. Efficacy assessment was done to evaluate the post-treatment HbA1c levels and patients requiring additional oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) at the time of follow-up visit. Patients were also analyzed for the occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: Out of the total, 2452 patients were in metformin only arm, and 288 patients were in metformin plus vildagliptin treatment arm. A more significant reduction in HbA1c level was observed in metformin plus vildagliptin arm than metformin only arm (median: -0.5% vs 0%, respectively; p<0.001). Patients requiring additional OAD at follow-up were significantly lesser in the metformin plus vildagliptin arm than the metformin only arm (15.6% vs 35.2%, respectively; p<0.001). The adverse events were comparable across the two arms, and commonly reported adverse events were giddiness, fatigue and gastric discomfort. CONCLUSION: The findings of this EMR-based real-world study emphasizes the need for early initiation of combination therapy (metformin plus vildagliptin) over metformin monotherapy for achieving better glycemic control.

Expert Group Recommendations on the Effective Use of Bolus Insulin in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Evidence suggests a major contribution of postprandial glucose (PPG) excursions to the increased risk of micro- and macro-vascular complications in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Administration of bolus insulin remains a very effective therapeutic option for PPG control. The aim of this expert group recommendation document was to provide practical and easy-to-execute guidelines for physicians on the appropriate use of bolus insulin in the management of T2DM. A panel of key opinion leaders from India reviewed and discussed the available clinical evidence and guideline recommendations on the following topics: (1) optimum control of PPG; (2) choice of bolus insulin; and (3) special situations and practical considerations. The expert panel critically analyzed the current literature and clinical practice guidelines and factored their rich clinical experience to develop a set of nine expert group recommendations for the effective use of bolus insulin. These recommendations will not only result in a more evidence-based application of bolus insulin in the clinical setting but also trigger further research and provide a valuable base for the development of future guidelines on the use of bolus insulin in the management of individuals with T2DM.

Steroid use during COVID-19 infection and hyperglycemia - What a physician should know.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to challenge us. Despite several strides in management, steroids remain the mainstay for treating moderate to severe disease and with it arises challenges such as hyperglycemia. The review aims to enhance awareness amongst physicians on steroid use and hyperglycemia. METHODS: An advisory document describing various strategies for hyperglycemia management was prepared in the public interest by DiabetesIndia. RESULTS: The review provides awareness on steroids and hyperglycemia, adverse outcomes of elevated blood glucose levels and, advice at the time of discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The article emphasizes enhancing awareness on effective management of hyperglycemia during COVID-19.

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.

Optimizing the treatment of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus with combination of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and metformin: An expert opinion.

The expanding burden of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) in today's world, with respect to incidence, prevalence, and cost incurred, is an existential risk to society. Various guidelines recommend individualization of treatment. This expert opinion aims to review the recent evidences and reach a consensus on the preferable combination therapy for use in newly diagnosed Indian T2DM patients with HbA1C >7.5%. The core committee included seventeen diabetes specialists. Three statements were developed, discussed, and rated by specialists and recommendations were noted. Specialists were requested to rate the statements using a 9-point Likert's scale with score of 1 being "Strongly Disagree" and 9 being "Strongly Agree". Statement-specific scores of all the specialists were added and mean score of ≥7.00 was considered to have achieved a consensus. Statements used to meet the consensus were: Statement 1. Majority of newly-diagnosed Indian diabetics have HbA1C >7.5%; Statement 2. Patients with HbA1C >7.5% may be initiated with dual therapy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) + Metformin; and Statement 3. In Indian patients with HbA1C >7.5% at diagnosis, DPP4Is + Metformin may be considered as a first-line therapy. Literature review revealed that HbA1C level at the time of diagnosis in majority of Indian T2DM patients is >7.5%. Consensus was reached that dual anti-diabetic therapy should be initiated in patients with HbA1C >7.5%. DPP4Is + Metformin is the preferred cost-effective option and may be considered as a first-line therapy in Indian T2DM patients with HbA1C >7.5% at diagnosis.

Insulinization in T2DM with Basal Analogues During COVID-19 Pandemic: Expert Opinion from an Indian Panel.

The ongoing global pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed a severe strain on the management of chronic conditions like diabetes. Optimal glycemic control is always important, but more so in the existing environment of COVID-19. In this context, timely insulinization to achieve optimal glycemic control assumes major significance. However, given the challenges associated with the pandemic like restrictions of movement and access to healthcare resources, a simple and easy way to initiate and optimize insulin therapy in people with uncontrolled diabetes is required. With this premise, a group of clinical experts comprising diabetologists and endocrinologists from India discussed the challenges and potential solutions for insulin initiation, titration, and optimization in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) during the COVID-19 pandemic and how basal insulin can be a good option in this situation owing to its unique set of advantages like lower risk of hypoglycemia, ease of training, need for less monitoring, better adherence, flexibility of using oral antidiabetic drugs, and improved quality of life compared to other insulin regimens. The panel agreed that the existing challenges should not be a reason to delay insulin initiation in people with uncontrolled T2DM and provided recommendations, which included potential solutions for initiating insulin in the absence or restriction of in-person consultations; the dose of insulin at initiation; the type of insulin preferred for simplified regimen and best practices for optimal titration to achieve glycemic targets during the pandemic. Practical and easily implementable tips for patients and involvement of stakeholders (caregivers and healthcare providers) to facilitate insulin acceptance were also outlined by the expert panel. Simplified and convenient insulin regimens like basal insulin analogues are advised during and following the pandemic in order to achieve glycemic control in people with uncontrolled T2DM.

Suboptimal glycemic control among subjects with diabetes mellitus in India: a subset analysis of cross-sectional wave-7 (2016) data from the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world management practices of subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in India. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted between 7 March 2016 and 15 May 2016 in India as part of the seventh wave (2016) of the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS). Adult subjects with T1DM or T2DM visiting physicians during a 2-week recruitment period were included. RESULTS: A total of 55 physicians included 539 subjects who met eligibility criteria. Of 495 subjects with T2DM, 303 were treated with oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) only, 158 were treated with OGLD + insulin, and 27 received insulin only. Among 44 subjects with T1DM receiving insulin, 13 (29.5%) were also treated with OGLD therapy. The most commonly used insulin regimens were basal alone (69/184; 37.5%) and premixed alone (63/184; 34.2%) in subjects with T2DM, and basal + prandial insulin (24/44; 54.5%) in subjects with T1DM. Proportions of subjects achieving glycemic targets were low [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7%: T1DM = 7.3% (3/44), T2DM = 25.2% (106/495); as targeted by the treating physician: T1DM = 31.8% (14/44), T2DM = 32.1% (59/185); global target: T1DM = 4.8% (2/42) and T2DM = 1.7% (8/482)]. In subjects with T2DM, HbA1c <7% was noted in 11/22 subjects receiving insulin only and 76/260 receiving only OGLDs. Lack of experience in self-managing insulin dosing, poor diabetes education and failure to titrate insulin dosages were the main reasons for non-achievement of glycemic targets. CONCLUSION: Timely insulinization, education and empowerment of people with diabetes may help improve glycemic control in India.

Efficacy and Safety of Remogliflozin Etabonate, a New Sodium Glucose Co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A 24-Week, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is the first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but many patients either cannot tolerate it or cannot achieve glycemic control with metformin alone, so treatment with other glucose-lowering agents in combination with metformin is frequently required. Remogliflozin etabonate, a novel agent, is an orally bioavailable prodrug of remogliflozin, which is a potent and selective sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remogliflozin etabonate compared with dapagliflozin in subjects with T2DM in whom a stable dose of metformin as monotherapy was providing inadequate glycemic control. METHODS: A 24-week randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, three-arm, parallel-group, multicenter, phase III study was conducted in India. Patients aged ≥ 18 and ≤ 65 years diagnosed with T2DM, receiving metformin ≥ 1500 mg/day, and with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels ≥ 7 to ≤ 10% at screening were randomized into three groups. Every patient received metformin ≥ 1500 mg and either remogliflozin etabonate 100 mg twice daily (BID) (group 1, n = 225) or remogliflozin etabonate 250 mg BID (group 2, n = 241) or dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily (QD) in the morning and placebo QD in the evening (group 3, n = 146). The patients were followed-up at weeks 1 and 4 and at 4-week intervals thereafter until week 24. The endpoints included mean change in HbA1c (primary endpoint, noninferiority margin = 0.35), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), bodyweight, blood pressure, and fasting lipids. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), safety laboratory values, electrocardiogram, and vital signs were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 612 randomized patients, 167 (group 1), 175 (group 2), and 103 (group 3) patients with comparable baseline characteristics completed the study. Mean change ± standard error (SE) in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 was - 0.72 ± 0.09, - 0.77 ± 0.09, and - 0.58 ± 0.12% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The difference in mean HbA1c of group 1 versus group 3 (- 0.14%, 90% confidence interval [CI] - 0.38 to 0.10) and group 2 versus group 3 (- 0.19%; 90% CI - 0.42 to 0.05) was noninferior to that in group 3 (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between group 1 or group 2 and group 3 in change in FPG, PPG, and bodyweight. The overall incidence of TEAEs was comparable across study groups (group 1 = 32.6%, group 2 = 34.4%, group 3 = 29.5%), including adverse events (AEs) of special interest (hypoglycemic events, urinary tract infection, genital fungal infection). Most TEAEs were mild to moderate in intensity, and no severe AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the noninferiority of remogliflozin etabonate 100 and 250 mg compared with dapagliflozin, from the first analysis of an initial 612 patients. Remogliflozin etabonate therefore may be considered an effective and well-tolerated alternative treatment option for glycemic control in T2DM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2017/07/009121.

Best Practices and Tools for Titrating Basal Insulins: Expert Opinion from an Indian Panel via the Modified Delphi Consensus Method.

AIM: To develop an evidence-based expert group consensus document on the best practices and simple tools for titrating basal insulins in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). BACKGROUND: Glycemic control is suboptimal in a large proportion of persons with T2DM, despite insulin therapy, thereby increasing the risk of potentially severe complications. Early initiation of insulin therapy and appropriate dose titration are crucial to achieving glycemic targets. Attitudes and practices among healthcare professionals (HCPs) and perceptions about insulin therapy among persons with diabetes contribute largely to suboptimal glycemic control. Improving HCP-patient communication, encouraging the use of additional educational tools, and providing support for the titration process to increase confidence, both at the initiation visit and at home, facilitate the optimization of dose titration. In Indian settings, specific guidelines and a consensus statement are lacking on the optimal insulin initiation dose, frequency of dose titration, and basal insulin profile needed to achieve optimal titration. In clinical practice, physicians and persons with diabetes often do not adhere to the titration algorithms that currently exist for the purpose of achieving optimal titration as they perceive these to be very cumbersome. In this context, a group of experts met at an advisory board meeting and arrived at a consensus on best practices for the titration of basal insulin in persons withT2DM in India, using the modified Delphi methodology. REVIEW RESULTS: After a review of evidence and further discussions, the expert group provided recommendations on insulin initiation dose, ideal period for titration in practice, titration regimen for use in practice, basal insulin profile for titration, and choosing a self-monitoring blood glucose schedule for titration. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of T2DM, insulin can be effectively titrated by following a few simple recommendations. The use of second-generation basal insulin aids in mitigating the risk of hypoglycemic events. The implementation of a simplified titration regimen is crucial to achieving glycemic targets and long-term treatment goals.

Management of periodontal disease in patients with diabetes- good clinical practice guidelines: A joint statement by Indian Society of Periodontology and Research Society for the Study of Diabetes in India.

There is a huge body of literature suggesting an association and a bidirectional relationship between periodontal disease and diabetes. Diabetes and periodontal diseases are both chronic diseases with a high prevalence. Dentists/periodontists, in their daily clinical practice, very often attend to diabetes patients with diverse oral health conditions and cater to their dental treatment needs. Safe and effective periodontal therapy in this population requires a broad understanding of diabetes, medical management of diabetes, and essential modifications to dental/periodontal therapy that may be required. This paper describes a joint statement put forth by the Indian Society of Periodontology and the Research Society for the Study of Diabetes in India aiming to provide expert consensus and evidence-based guidelines for optimal clinical management of periodontal conditions in diabetes patients or patients at risk for diabetes. Although this paper is not envisioned to be a comprehensive review of this topic, it intends to provide the guidelines for dental professionals and periodontists.