Dataset Information

Poor glycemic control, cardiovascular disease risk factors and their clustering among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional study from Nepal.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). To prevent morbidity and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), optimization of glycemic status and minimizing CVD risk factors is essential. As Nepal has limited data on these CVD risk parameters, we assessed the prevalence of poor glycemic control, CVD risk factors, and their clustering among patients with T2DM.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional study design, we collected data of 366 patients with T2DM. We applied a multistage cluster sampling technique and used the WHO STEPS tools. Binary logistic and Poisson regression was applied to calculate odds and prevalence ratio of clustering of risk factors, considering P< 0.05 statistically significant.

Results

The mean age of participants was 54.5±10.7 years and 208 (57%) were male. The prevalence of poor glycemic control was 66.4% (95% C.I: 61.5-71.2). The prevalence of smoking, alcohol users, inadequate fruit and vegetables intake and physical inactivity were 18% (95% C.I:14 to 21.9), 14.8% (95% C.I:11.1 to 18.4), 98.1% (95% C.I: 96.7-99.4), and 9.8% (95% C.I:6.7-12.8), respectively. Overall, 47.3% (95% C.I: 42.1-52.4) were overweight and obese, 59% (95% C.I: 52.9-63) were hypertensive, and 68% (95% C.I: 63.2-72.7) had dyslipidemia. Clustering of two, three, four, five and more than five risk factors was 12.6%, 30%, 30%,19%, and 8.7%, respectively. Four or more risk factors clustering was significantly associated with gender, age, level of education, T2DM duration, and use of medication. Risk factors clustering was significantly higher among males and users of anti-diabetic medications with prevalence ratio of 1.14 (95% C.I:1.05-1.23) and 1.09 (95% C.I: 1.09-1.18)], respectively.

Conclusions

The majority of the patients with T2DM had poor glycemic control and CVD risk factors. Policies and programs focused on the prevention and better management of T2DM and CVD risk factors should be implemented to reduce mortality in Nepal.

SUBMITTER: Khanal MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9312399 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Over the past two decades, the prevalence of diabetes has increased faster in low- and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. Regardless of the instant growth in the prevalence of diabetes in Ethiopia, up-to-date data regarding glycemic control and related complications of diabetes is inadequate. This study aimed to identify glycemic control and chronic complications and their determinants among ambulatory diabetic patients at Mizan-Tepi University Teaching Hospital (MTUTH). Methods:We conducted facility-based cross-sectional study from February 25 to March 25, 2019, at Mizan-Tepi University Teaching Hospital. Patients' demographic data, diabetes complications, and treatments were collected using pretested questionnaire and data abstraction format. Data was entered by using Epidata manager 4.0.2.101, and statistical analysis was done by SPSS version 21. Bivariate logistic regression was done to see the association between independent variables and glycemic control and complication. Multivariable logistic regression analyses using backward selection were done to identify the predictors of poor glycemic control and complication at a P-value of <0.05. Results:One hundred ambulatory diabetic patients were included in this study. The mean duration of diabetes and the mean age of the participants were 3.95±5.85 and 46.66±15.53 years, respectively. About 71 (71%) of the studied diabetic patients had uncontrolled fasting blood glucose (FBG) level. More than half of the diabetic patients (59%) developed chronic complications of diabetes. Low medication adherence (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=11.78, 95%CI: 1.09-17.17) and inappropriate doses in the first, second, and third clinic visits (AOR=7.70, 95%CI: 1.79-33.01; AOR=8.09, 95%CI: 1.90-34.33; AOR=4.34, 95%CI: 1.09-17.17), respectively, were independent predictors of uncontrolled FBG. No variable was found to be an independent predictor of chronic diabetic complication on multivariable logistic regression analyses. Conclusion:Poor glycemic control and diabetes complications among ambulatory diabetic patients were high. Low medication adherence and inappropriate doses in the first, second, and third clinic visits were independent predictors of poor glycemic control.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the rate of glycemic control and associated factors among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients at Dilchora Referral Hospital, Dire Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted from 13 May to 16 August 2019. Type 2 diabetic patients on follow up at Dilchora Referral Hospital who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the study were included. Systematic random sampling was used to select study participants. Data was collected by a face-to-face interview and review of medical records. The primary outcome was the level of blood glucose during three consecutive visits. Poor glycemic control was defined as a blood sugar level of more than 154 mg/dL based on the average of measurements from three consecutive visits. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify determinants of glycemic control.ResultA total of 394 participants responded to the interview and were included in the final analysis. The overall prevalence of poor glycemic control was 45.2% (95%CI: 40.6%-50.0%). Patients who were on oral anti-diabetic drug plus insulin had more than two times greater chance of poor glycemic control than patients on oral anti-diabetic drug alone: 2.177(95%CI:1.10-4.29). The odds of poor glycemic control in patients who did not understand the pharmacist's instructions was two times higher than patients with good understanding of instructions 1.86(95%CI: 1.10-3.13). Patients who had poor level of practice were found to have poor glycemic control: 1.69(95% CI: 1.13-2.55).ConclusionThe overall prevalence of poor glycemic control was high among type 2 diabetes patients. Oral anti-diabetic drugs in combination with insulin, lack of understanding of pharmacist's advice, and poor practice of diabetic patients were significant factors of poor glycemic control. Pharmacists should reassure the understanding of patients before discharge during counseling. Optimization of the dose of antidiabetic medications and combination of oral hypoglycemic agents should be considered.

Project description:BackgroundSuboptimal glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a significant public health problem, particularly among people living with poor education and economic statuses, including those with a unique dietary culture. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and identify the factors associated with suboptimal glycemic control among patients with type 2 DM during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsA hospital-based cross-sectional study was used to elicit information from DM patients attending six hospitals located in Chiang Rai Province, northern Thailand, between February and May 2021. A validated questionnaire and 5 mL blood specimens were used as the research tools. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) greater than 7.0% among DM patients at least two years after diagnosis was defined as suboptimal glycemic control. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to identify the associations between variables at the significance level α = 0.05.ResultsA total of 967 patients were recruited for this study; 54.8% 530 had suboptimal glycemic control, 58.8% were female, 66.5% were aged 50-69 years, and 78.5% were married (78.5%). Six variables were found to be associated with suboptimal glycemic control in multivariable logistic regression. Participants aged <49, 50-59, and 60-69 years had 3.32 times (95% CI = 1.99-5.53), 2.61 times (95% CI = 1.67-4.08), and 1.93 times (95% CI = 1.26-2.95) greater odds of having suboptimal glycemic control, respectively, than those aged ≥70 years. Married individuals had 1.64 times (95% CI = 1.11-2.41) greater odds of having suboptimal glycemic control than those ever married. Participants who consumed sticky rice had 1.61 times (95% CI = 1.19-2.61) greater odds of having suboptimal glycemic control than those who did not consume sticky rice in daily life. Participants who had been diagnosed with DM for 11-20 years and ≥21 years had 1.98 times (95% CI = 1.37-2.86) and 2.46 times (1.50-4.04) greater odds of having suboptimal glycemic control, respectively, than those who had been diagnosed ≤ 10 years. Participants who had experienced forgetting to take their medication had 2.10 times (95% CI = 1.43-3.09) greater odds of having suboptimal glycemic control than those who did not, and those who had their medical expenses covered by the national scheme had 2.67 times (95% CI = 1.00-7.08) greater odds of suboptimal glycemic control than those who self-paid.ConclusionEffective health interventions to control blood glucose among DM patients during ongoing treatment are urgently required. The interventions should focus on patients aged less than 69 years, marital status, forgetting to take their medication, and a longer time since diagnosis, including reducing their sticky rice consumption. The effects of copayments should also be considered.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Poor glycemic control is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM); however, little is known about mechanisms specific to T1DM. In T1DM, myocardial injury can induce persistent cardiac autoimmunity. Chronic hyperglycemia causes myocardial injury, raising the possibility that hyperglycemia-induced cardiac autoimmunity could contribute to long-term CVD complications in T1DM. METHODS:We measured the prevalence and profiles of cardiac autoantibodies (AAbs) in longitudinal samples from the DCCT (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial) in participants with mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ?9.0% (n=83) and ?7.0% (n=83) during DCCT. We assessed subsequent coronary artery calcification (measured once during years 7-9 in the post-DCCT EDIC [Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications] observational study), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (measured during EDIC years 4-6), and CVD events (defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, death resulting from CVD, heart failure, or coronary artery bypass graft) over a 26-year median follow-up. Cardiac AAbs were also measured in matched patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with HbA1c ?9.0% (n=70) and ?7.0% (n=140) and, as a control for cardiac autoimmunity, patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy (n=51). RESULTS:Apart from HbA1c levels, the DCCT groups shared similar CVD risk factors at the beginning and end of DCCT. The DCCT HbA1c ?9.0% group showed markedly higher cardiac AAb levels than the HbA1c ?7.0% group during DCCT, with a progressive increase and decrease in AAb levels over time in the 2 groups, respectively ( P<0.001). In the HbA1c ?9.0% group, 46%, 22%, and 11% tested positive for ?1, ?2, and ?3 different cardiac AAb types, respectively, similar to patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy, compared with 2%, 1%, and 0% in the HbA1c ?7.0% group. Glycemic control was not associated with AAb prevalence in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Positivity for ?2 AAbs during DCCT was associated with increased risk of CVD events (4 of 6; hazard ratio, 16.1; 95% CI, 3.0-88.2) and, in multivariable analyses, with detectable coronary artery calcification (13 of 31; odds ratio, 60.1; 95% CI, 8.4-410.0). Patients with ?2 AAbs subsequently also showed elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels (6.0 mg/L versus 1.4 mg/L in patients with ?1 AAbs; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:Poor glycemic control is associated with cardiac autoimmunity in T1DM. Furthermore, cardiac AAb positivity is associated with an increased risk of CVD decades later, suggesting a role for autoimmune mechanisms in the development of CVD in T1DM, possibly through inflammatory pathways.