Diabetes diagnosis, treatment, and control in India: results from a national survey of 1.65 million adults aged 18 years and older, 2019-2021

Importance Diabetes mellitus (DM) is widespread and treatable. Little is known about the diabetes care continuum (diagnosis, treatment, and control) in India, and whether it varies by socio-demographic characteristics and vary at the national, state, and district levels. Objective To estimate the diabetes care continuum among individuals aged 18-98 years old at national, state, and district-levels, and by socio-demographic group. Design Cross-sectional, nationally representative survey Setting 28 states, 8 union territories, and 707 districts of India Participants 1,895,287 approached in the Fifth National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), 2019-2021 Exposures District, state, urban vs rural residence, age (18-39, 40-64, ≥65 years), sex, household wealth quintile Main Outcomes and Measures Diabetes was defined by self-report or high capillary blood glucose (≥126mg/dL [fasting] or ≥220mg/dL [non-fasting]). Of those with diabetes, we estimated proportions that were diagnosed (self-reported). Among those diagnosed, we reported the proportions treated (self-reported medication use) and proportion controlled (blood glucose <126 [fasting] or ≤180 mg/dL [non-fasting; corresponding to HbA1c≤8%]). We benchmarked findings against the World Health Organization’s Global Diabetes Compact Targets (80% diagnosis, 80% control among those diagnosed). We partitioned the variance in indicators between state and district levels using variance partition coefficients (VPC). Results Among 1,651,176 adult respondents (52.6% female; mean age: 41.6 years) with blood glucose measures, the proportion with diabetes was 6.5% (95%CI: 6.4, 6.6). Among adults with diabetes, 74.2% [73.3, 75.0] were diagnosed. Among those diagnosed, 59.4% [58.1, 60.6] reported taking medication and 65.5% [64.5, 66.4] achieved control. Diagnosis and treatment were higher in urban areas, older age groups, and wealthier households. Of the 707 districts, 34.8% districts met diagnosis target, while 10.7% districts met the control target among those diagnosed. Most of the variability in diabetes diagnosis (VPC:69.9%), treatment (VPC:51.8%), and control (VPC:66.8%) were between districts in a state, and not between states. Conclusions and Relevance Nationally, the diabetes care continuum masks considerable state- and district-level variation, as well as age- and rural-urban disparities. Surveillance at the district-level can guide state health administrators to prioritize interventions and monitor achievement of global targets. Question How does the diabetes care continuum (diagnosis, treatment, and control) vary by state, district, and sociodemographic groups in India? Findings Nationally, among 1.65 million respondents in the National Family Health Survey of 2019-2021, 74.2% were diagnosed. Among those diagnosed, 59.4% reported taking medication and 65.5% achieved control. Most of the variability in care continuum was within-state, between districts (% variance explained: 51.8-69.9) and not between-states. Higher diagnosis and treatment, but lower control was observed in urban compared to rural areas and older compared to younger and middle age groups. Meaning Considerable differences between states, between districts in a state, for rural adults, and by age imply the need for targeted, decentralized solutions to improve the diabetes care continuum in India. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: www.dhsprogram.com I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes All datasets used in this analysis are available for download at www.dhsprogram.com. The code for the analysis is available on https://github.com/jvargh7/nfhs_cascade.