Search

Introduction: The overall evidence for the long-term exposure of metformin on cardiovascular-renal (CV) outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at different stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains controversial. Methods: We conducted a prospective analysis of 14,766 Chinese patients with T2D enrolled between 2000 and 2016 observed until 31 December 2019. We compared all-cause mortality and incidence of major adverse CV events (MACE) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in prevalent and new metformin users versus other glucose lowering drugs (GLDs) users stratified by CKD stage. Results: During a mean follow-up of 9.6 years (141,310 person-years), we identified 1,798 deaths in metformin users (n=13,967) and 352 deaths in other-GLDs users (n=799). The mean daily dosage of metformin was 1,450 mg and duration of exposure was 7.8 years in CKD stage 1-2 (n=12,375). The respective figures were 1000 mg and 5.7 years in CKD stage 3-4 (n=1,592). Compared with other-GLDs, metformin exposure was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality (All: HR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.43-0.54; CKD stage 1-2: HR=0.38, 0.33-0.44; stage 3A: HR=0.53, 0.41-0.69); MACE (All: HR=0.85, 0.72-0.99; stage 1-2: HR=0.80, 0.65-0.99; stage 3-4: HR=0.97, 0.74-1.27) and ESKD (All: HR=0.65, 0.54-0.80; stage 1-2: HR=0.53, 0.33-0.85; stage 3-4: HR=0.80, 0.63-1.02). New users of metformin (n=4,013) had reduced risk of all-cause mortality across all CKD stages; MACE in stage 1-2 and ESKD in stage 1, 2 and 3 compared with users of other oral-GLDs (n=536). Increasing duration and dosage of metformin (up to 1500 mg/day) was associated with reduced or neutral risk of MACE, ESKD and all-cause mortality. The rate of metformin-associated lactic acidosis (MALA) was 5.39 per 100,000 patient-years in CKD stage 3-4. Conclusion: Long-term metformin use was associated with reduced or neutral risk of all-cause mortality, MACE and ESKD among Chinese patients with T2D at CKD stage 1-3 with low risk of MALA. Disclosure A. Yang: None. E. S. H. Lau: None. H. Wu: None. R. C. Ma: Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Novo Nordisk, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, Tricida, Inc. A. P. Kong: Advisory Panel; Self; Lilly Diabetes, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Sanofi, Stock/Shareholder; Self; Aptorum. A. Luk: None. A. W. Fu: Research Support; Self; Merck KGaA. J. C. Chan: Consultant; Self; Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, MSD Corporation, Sanofi, Other Relationship; Self; Asia Diabetes Foundation, GemVCare, Research Support; Self; Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Hua Medicine, Lilly Diabetes, Merck KGaA. E. Chow: Research Support; Self; Medtronic, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Sanofi-Aventis. Funding Asia Diabetes Foundation; Merck Pharmaceutical (HK) Limited; Chinese University of Hong Kong (to A.Y.)

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and its comorbidities can be prevented by treating multiple targets. Technology-assisted team-based care with regular feedback and patient empowerment can improve the attainment of multiple targets and clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, but the effects of this intervention on patients with DKD are unclear.To evaluate the effect of the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) web portal, nurse reminders, and team-based care on multiple risk factors in patients with DKD.This 12-month multinational, open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted between June 27, 2014, and February 19, 2019, at 13 hospital-based diabetes centers in 8 countries or regions in Asia. All patients who participated had DKD. The intention-to-treat data analysis was performed from April 7 to June 30, 2020.Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio at each site to usual care, empowered care, or team-based empowered care. All patients underwent a JADE web portal-guided structured assessment at baseline and month 12. Patients in the usual care and empowered care groups received a medical follow-up. Patients in the empowered care group also received a personalized JADE report and nurse telephone calls every 3 months. Patients in the team-based empowered care group received additional face-to-face reviews every 3 months from a physician-nurse team.The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who attained multiple treatment targets (defined as ≥3 of 5 targets: HbA1c level7.0% [53 mmol/mol], blood pressure130/80 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level1.8 mmol/L, triglyceride level1.7 mmol/L, and/or persistent use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors).A total of 2393 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.7 [9.8] years; 1267 men [52.9%]) were randomized to the usual care group (n = 795), empowered care group (n = 802), and team-based empowered care group (n = 796). At baseline, 34.7% patients (n = 830) were on 3 treatment targets. On intention-to-treat analysis, the team-based empowered care group had the highest proportion of patients who had further increase in attainment of multiple treatment targets (within-group differences: usual care group, 3.9% [95% CI, 0.0%-7.8%]; empowered care group, 1.3% [95% CI, -2.8% to 5.4%]; team-based empowered care group, 9.1% [95% CI, 4.7%-13.5%]). The team-based empowered care group was more likely to attain multiple treatment targets than the usual care group (risk ratio [RR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.37) and the empowered care group (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.48) after adjustment for site. Compared with the group that did not attain multiple treatment targets, the group that attained multiple treatment targets reported a lower incidence of cardiovascular, kidney, and cancer events (8.4% [n = 51] vs 14.5% [n = 134]; P = .004). Analysis of the per-protocol population yielded similar results.This trial found that technology-assisted team-based care for 12 months improved the attainment of multiple treatment targets as well as empowerment in patients with DKD.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02176278.

DKD causes co-morbidities made preventable by attaining multiple targets. Patient empowerment, regular feedback and team-based care assisted by JADE Technology with risk stratification and decision support may improve targets attainment and clinical outcomes. In 2014-2018, 2435 patients1 with DKD2 (age:67.6±9.9 years, DM duration:16.5±9.7 years; BMI:26.9±4.7 kg/m2; A1c:7.9±1.6%; SBP:139±18 mmHg; LDL-C:2.35±1.05 mmol/L; TG:1.92±1.29 mmol/L; RASi:70.0%; statin:74.8%; CVD:32.0%, cancer:5.0%, heart failure:3.9%, ≥3 targets3:33.6%), were randomized to usual care (UC=809), empowered care (EC=819) and team-based empowered care (TEC=807) for 1 year with endpoints defined at year 1 and when study ends. After structured assessment, EC and TEC received JADE report, with EC receiving 3-monthly phone calls by nurses and TEC, additional 3-monthly review by a doctor-nurse team with JADE follow-up reports. Amongst 1837 returnees at 1 year, TEC had the lowest HbA1c and LDL-C and highest proportion with ≥3 targets (TMT)4. Non-returnees had worse risk profiles and were less likely to have familial DM and received prior DM education. At study end (2019)5, TMT group (27/408) had fewer CV-renal-cancer endpoints than non-TMT group (66/676) with RR of 0.678 (95% CI: 0.668-0.687). Empowerment, information support and continuing team-based care improve risk factor control and clinical outcomes in DKD. Disclosure J.C.N. Chan: Board Member; Self; Asia Diabetes Foundation. Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Sanofi-Aventis. Research Support; Self; Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Lee Powder, Lilly Diabetes, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Ascensia Diabetes Care. Stock/Shareholder; Self; GemVCare. K.T. Nguyen: Advisory Panel; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Abbott. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis. A. Tan: None. Y.C. Chia: None. C. Hwu: None. E. Hong: None. Y. Thewjitcharoen: None. J. Du: None. S. Yoo: None. R.C. Mirasol: None. E.S. Lau: None. V. Lau: None. A.W.C. Fu: None. M. Mohamed: None. K. Yoon: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. C. Tsang: None. A. Luk: None. Funding Asia Diabetes Foundation

Key Points Question What are the effects of a quality improvement intervention on the care and cardiometabolic risk factors of patients with type 2 diabetes in low- and middle-income countries in the Asia-Pacific region? Findings In this randomized clinical trial of 20 834 patients with type 2 diabetes in 8 Asia-Pacific countries, the intervention group received a technology-guided structured evaluation, automated personalized reports to encourage patient empowerment, and nurse reminders to increase patient engagement over a 12-month period. Clinical events were similar between the control and intervention groups at 12 months; however, the intervention group was more likely to experience reductions in multiple risk factors and increases in the attainment of diabetes-associated targets. Meaning The study’s findings indicate that 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 in low- and middle-income countries., 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, This randomized clinical trial examines the effects of a quality improvement intervention comprising information and communications technology and increased contact with nurses on the clinical care and cardiometabolic risk factors of patients with type 2 diabetes in Asia-Pacific countries.

Background Diabetes outcomes are influenced by host factors, settings, and care processes. We examined the association of data-driven integrated care assisted by information and communications technology (ICT) with clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes in public and private healthcare settings. Methods and findings The web-based Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) platform provides a protocol to guide data collection for issuing a personalized JADE report including risk categories (1–4, low–high), 5-year probabilities of cardiovascular-renal events, and trends and targets of 4 risk factors with tailored decision support. The JADE program is a prospective cohort study implemented in a naturalistic environment where patients underwent nurse-led structured evaluation (blood/urine/eye/feet) in public and private outpatient clinics and diabetes centers in Hong Kong. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 16,624 Han Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes who were enrolled in 2007–2015. In the public setting, the non-JADE group (n = 3,587) underwent structured evaluation for risk factors and complications only, while the JADE (n = 9,601) group received a JADE report with group empowerment by nurses. In a community-based, nurse-led, university-affiliated diabetes center (UDC), the JADE-Personalized (JADE-P) group (n = 3,436) received a JADE report, personalized empowerment, and annual telephone reminder for reevaluation and engagement. The primary composite outcome was time to the first occurrence of cardiovascular-renal diseases, all-site cancer, and/or death, based on hospitalization data censored on 30 June 2017. During 94,311 person-years of follow-up in 2007–2017, 7,779 primary events occurred. Compared with the JADE group (136.22 cases per 1,000 patient-years [95% CI 132.35–140.18]), the non-JADE group had higher (145.32 [95% CI 138.68–152.20]; P = 0.020) while the JADE-P group had lower event rates (70.94 [95% CI 67.12–74.91]; P < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the primary composite outcome were 1.22 (95% CI 1.15–1.30) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.66–0.75), respectively, independent of risk profiles, education levels, drug usage, self-care, and comorbidities at baseline. We reported consistent results in propensity-score–matched analyses and after accounting for loss to follow-up. Potential limitations include its nonrandomized design that precludes causal inference, residual confounding, and participation bias. Conclusions ICT-assisted integrated care was associated with a reduction in clinical events, including death in type 2 diabetes in public and private healthcare settings., Lee-Ling Lim and colleagues reveal how personalised medical guidance can reduce clinical outcomes for diabetes patients in Hong Kong., Author summary Why was this study done? The public healthcare systems are overburdened with manpower shortage, long waiting time, infrequent structured evaluation, and insufficient patient engagement, while structured patient assessment and education is often not provided in the private sector due to high costs and/or lack of capacity. In 2007, we developed the web-based Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) Program, a multicomponent data-driven integrated care program, to close care gaps in both private and public sectors in Hong Kong. It combines the use of nonphysician personnel (e.g., nurses), information and communications technology (ICT), and structured evaluation with issue of personalized JADE reports to empower patients and promote shared decision-making. In 2007, we also established a community-based, nurse-led diabetes center to complement public and private care in Hong Kong by increasing community access to JADE-assisted evaluation for personalized empowerment and engagement. What did the researchers do and find? This retrospective analysis involved 16,624 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled from the public and private sector in Hong Kong between 2007 and 2015. We categorized these patients into 3 groups, namely non-JADE, JADE, and JADE-Personalized (JADE-P), and compared their risk for clinical events after 6 years of follow-up. Compared with the JADE group (publicly funded evaluation with JADE reports and group education), the non-JADE group (publicly funded evaluation only) had 19%–34% higher risk of clinical events, including hospitalization. Compared with the JADE group, the JADE-P group (self-paid evaluation with JADE reports, personalized empowerment, and annual telephone reminder for engagement) had 23%–36% lower risk of clinical events, including hospitalization and death. What do these findings mean? Multicomponent, data-driven integrated care, assisted by nonphysician personnel and ICT, is associated with a reduction in clinical events and death in patients with type 2 diabetes. Its implementation in the private sector is an affordable option for patients who opt for a more user-friendly and personalized care and may reduce the burden of hospitalization in the public sector.

Aims/Introduction Biosimilar insulin can reduce treatment costs, although the extent of its use is largely unknown. We examined biosimilar insulin use and its associations with the quality of glycemic control using the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation register. Materials and Methods We carried out a cross‐sectional analysis in 81,531 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes enrolled into the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation Program from 2007 to 2014. All insulin related terms are extracted from the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation portal, and compared clinical profiles between biosimilar and originator insulin users. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess the association of biosimilar insulin compared with originator insulin with dosage, glycated hemoglobin and hypoglycemia events. Results Amongst 81,531 patients, 20.5% (n = 16,738) were insulin‐treated. In four countries with high use of biosimilar insulin, 4.7% (n = 719) of insulin users (n = 10,197) were treated with biosimilar insulin (India n = 507, 70.3%; the Philippines n = 90, 12.5%; China n = 62, 8.6%; Vietnam n = 60, 8.3%). Biosimilar insulin users were younger and had higher body mass index, glycated hemoglobin, insulin dosage and more frequent hypoglycemia than originator insulin users. These associations were non‐significant after adjustment for confounders. Only age, college education, diabetes education, lipid control, physical activity and history of cardiovascular complications were independently associated with these quality measures. Conclusions Biosimilar insulin use is not uncommon in Asia. Data exclusion due to incomplete capturing of brand names suggests possibly higher use. The multiple determinants of the quality of glycemic control call for establishment of prospective cohorts and diabetes registers to monitor the safety and efficacy of different brands of biosimilar insulin and their impacts on clinical outcomes.