| Literature DB >> 30976182 |
Mansour Almetwazi1,2, Monira Alwhaibi1,2, Bander Balkhi1,2, Hissah Almohaini3, Haya Alturki4, Tariq Alhawassi1,2,3, Sondus Ata3, Nasser AlQahtani5, Mansour Mahmoud6, Thamir Alshammari2,7,5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in tertiary academic hospital. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Data were extracted from the electronic health record (EHR) database for the period from 1st of January to 31st of December 2016. Participants were considered to have a glucose control if the HbA1c level was less than 7% [53 mmol/L]. Descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regression model were performed to assess the factors associated with glycemic control.Entities:
Keywords: Factors; Saudi Arabia; Type 2 diabetes
Year: 2018 PMID: 30976182 PMCID: PMC6438893 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2018.12.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi Pharm J ISSN: 1319-0164 Impact factor: 4.330
Demographic and co-morbidities characteristics.
| Characteristic | Controlled DM 56.87% (414) | Uncontrolled DM 43.13% (314) | Total | p- value chi square |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 18.82% (137) | 15.11% (110) | 33.93% (247) | 0.584 |
| No | 38.05% (277) | 28.02% (204) | 66.07% (481) | |
| Male | 20.74% (151) | 14.42% (105) | 35.16% (256) | 0.396 |
| Female | 36.13% (263) | 28.71% (209) | 64.84% (472) | |
| Young adults (18–44 years) | 17.03% (124) | 7.14% (52) | 24.18% (176) | <0.001 |
| Middle age adults (45–64 years) | 32.55% (237) | 27.06% (197) | 59.62% (434) | |
| Older adults (>65 years) | 7.28% (53) | 8.93% (65) | 16.21% (118) | |
| Yes | 26.37% (192) | 28.16% (205) | 54.53% (397) | <0.001 |
| No | 30.49% (222) | 14.97% (109) | 45.47% (331) | |
| Yes | 25.41% (185) | 27.88% (203) | 53.30% (388) | <0.001 |
| No | 31.46% (229) | 15.25% (111) | 46.70% (340) | |
| Yes | 0.41% (3) | 0.96% (7) | 1.37% (10) | 0.084 |
| No | 56.46% (411) | 42.17% (307) | 98.63% (718) | |
| Yes | 0.41% (3) | 0.69% (5) | 1.10% (8) | 0.266 |
| No | 56.46% (411) | 42.45% (309) | 98.90% (720) | |
| Yes | 6.59% (48) | 2.61% (19) | 9.20% (67) | 0.010 |
| No | 50.27% (366) | 40.52% (295) | 90.80% (661) | |
| Yes | 3.02% (22) | 2.75% (20) | 5.77% (42) | 0.545 |
| No | 53.85% (392) | 40.38% (294) | 94.23% (686) | |
| Yes | 2.43% (17) | 1.51% (11) | 3.85% (28) | 0.675 |
| No | 54.53% (397) | 41.62% (303) | 96.15% (700) | |
| Yes | 5.63% (41) | 2.20% (16) | 7.83% (57) | 0.017 |
| No | 51.24% (373) | 40.93% (298) | 92.17% (671) | |
| Yes | 0.82% (6) | 0.69% (5) | 1.51% (11) | 0.875 |
| No | 56.04% (408) | 42.45% (309) | 98.49% (717) | |
Statistical significant.
Results of the logistic regression, for the effect of vitamin D deficiency in diabetic control.
| Variables | Adjusted odds ratio (95%) | p- value |
|---|---|---|
| Non-deficient | – | Reference |
| Deficient | 0.80 [CI: 0.58–1.12] | 0.212 |
| Female | – | Reference |
| Male | 1.03 [CI: 0.74–1.44] | 0.825 |
| Young adults (18–44 years) | – | Reference |
| Middle age adults (45–64 years) | 0.72 [CI: 0.47–1.10] | 0.134 |
| Older adults (>65 years) | 0.53 [CI: 0.30–0.93] | |
| No | – | Reference |
| Yes | 0.61 [CI: 0.43–0.86] | |
| No | – | Reference |
| Yes | 0.53 [CI: 0.38–0.74] | |
| No | – | Reference |
| Yes | 0.41 [CI: 0.10–1.69] | 0.220 |
| No | – | Reference |
| Yes | 0.49 [CI: 0.10–2.28] | 0.364 |
| No | – | Reference |
| Yes | 2.06 [CI: 1.16–3.68] | |
| No | – | Reference |
| Yes | 1.08 [CI: 0.56–2.09] | 0.803 |
| No | – | Reference |
| Yes | 1.88 [CI: 0.81–4.32] | 0.136 |
| No | – | Reference |
| Yes | 1.53 [CI: 0.81–2.9] | 0.186 |
| No | – | Reference |
| Yes | 0.98 [CI: 0.28–3.44] | 0.985 |
Statistical significant.