METHODS: DIA-RAMADAN was a real-world, observational, international, non-comparative study. The global study population was divided into three regional subgroups, with data gathered at inclusion 6-8 weeks prior to Ramadan (V0), during Ramadan (4.5 weeks) and 4-6 weeks after Ramadan (V1). Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reporting ≥ 1 symptomatic hypoglycaemic events (HE), which were collected using a patient diary along with other adverse events.
RESULTS: Patient numbers from the three regions were n = 564 (46.5%; Indian sub-continent), n = 354 (29.1%; Middle East) and n = 296 (24.4%; South-East Asia). Patient baseline characteristics, demographics, fasting habits and antidiabetic treatments varied between regions. There were similar proportions of symptomatic HE between regions, with no severe HE. Significant weight reductions were observed in all regions following Ramadan, along with reductions in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose.
CONCLUSION: These real-world study data indicate that gliclazide MR is safe and effective for management of type 2 diabetes during Ramadan in all three regions studied as part of DIA-RAMADAN.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT04132934. INFOGRAPHIC.
METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included adults with T2DM from 11 Asian countries/regions prospectively enrolled in the Joint Asian Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) Register (2007-2019) with available EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-3L) data.
RESULTS: Of 47,895 included patients, 42,813 were treated with OGLDs + lifestyle modifications (LSM) and 5,082 with LSM only. Among those treated with OGLDs, 60% received sulphonylureas (SUs), of whom 47% received gliclazide. The OGLD + LSM group had a lower mean EQ-5D-3L index score than the LSM-only group (p
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from adults with T2D from 11 Asian countries/regions with structured assessment enrolled in the prospective Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) register between November 2007 and December 2019. Patients receiving insulin and/or injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists were excluded.
RESULTS: Amongst 62 512 patients (mean ± standard deviation age: 57.3 ± 11.8 years; 53.6% men), 54 783 (87.6%) were treated with OGLDs at enrolment. Most received one (37.5%) or two (44.2%) OGLDs. In the entire cohort, 59.4% of treated patients received SU-based therapy with variations amongst countries/regions. Overall, 79.5% of SU regimens were based on SUs plus metformin, and 22.1% on SUs plus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Among SU users, gliclazide was most commonly prescribed (46.7%), followed by glimepiride (40.0%) and glibenclamide (8.1%). More gliclazide users entered the cohort with glycated haemoglobin levels <53 mmol/mol (7%) than non-gliclazide SU users (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.17), with less frequent self-reported hypoglycaemia in the 3 months before registration (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.92; adjusted for sociodemographic factors, cardiometabolic risk factors, complications, use of other OGLDs, country/region and year of registration).
CONCLUSION: In Asia, SUs are a popular OGLD class, often combined with metformin. Good glycaemic control and safety profiles associated with the use of SUs, including gliclazide, support their position as a key treatment option in patients with T2D.