High atherogenic risk concomitant with elevated HbA1c among persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus in North Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic disease associated with worse clinical presentation. However, the current investigation practices in Ethiopia have limitations to demonstrate the scope of the clinical burden. Hence, this study was aimed at assessing the glycemic status and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of persons with T2DM using HbA1c and atherogenic index of plasma (AIP).
METHOD: This institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 421 adults with T2DM from September to November 2019. Demographic, socioeconomic, and lifestyle data were collected through a face-to-face interview. Clinical information was retrieved from medical records whereas anthropometric and biochemical measurements were performed using the WHO protocols. Glycemic status was determined using HbA1c and CHD risk assessed using an atherogenic index of plasma (AIP). Gaussian variables were expressed using mean and standard deviation (SD), Log-normal variables using geometric mean and 95% CI and non- Gaussian variables using median and interquartile ranges. Categorical variables were summarized using absolute frequencies and percentages. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with glycemic control with a statistical significance set at 5%. RESULT: A total of 195 male and 226 female subjects were involved in this study. The results demonstrated that 77% (324) had HbA1c value ≥7% and 87.2% (367) had high atherogenic risk for CHD. Besides, 57% and 67.9% of persons with T2DM had metabolic syndrome according to International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and the National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult treatment panel III (NCEP-ATP III) criteria, respectively. About 36.8% had one or more comorbidities. Having healthy eating behavior [AOR 1.95; CI 1.11-3.43] and taking metformin [AOR 4.88; CI 1.91-12.44] were associated with better glycemic outcomes.
CONCLUSION: High AIP level concomitant with poor glycemic control indicates increased risk for coronary heart disease among persons with T2DM in Northern Ethiopia.

Introduction

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic disease associated with acute and long-term complications [1, 2]. Cardiovascular (CV) complication, largely coronary heart disease (CHD), is one of the significant complications that lead to premature death [1, 3]. Dyslipidemia, a key mediator of the T2DM-CHD link [4], is chiefly atherogenic and is characterized by elevated triglycerides (TGs), reduced HDL cholesterol levels, and raised small, dense LDL (sdLDL) particle levels [5].

T2DM can be considered a CHD risk equivalent. It is thus invaluable to monitor the risk level by assessing glycaemia and dyslipidemia to calibrate the intensity of management with risk. Achieving this goal, in turn, requires valid diagnostic and prognostic markers [6]. However, current Ethiopia practices rely on fasting serum glucose and conventional lipid profiles [7-11]. Fasting serum glucose is less reproducible and is inferior to predict long-term outcomes [12, 13].

Similarly, despite its merit to gauge the quantitative derangement of lipoproteins, the existing lipid profiling leaves the residual risk connected with qualitative LDL changes undetected [14, 15]. Therefore, the risk monitoring made using the approaches mentioned above could have less quality, and thus the clinical management as a consequence. Hence, it is crucial to consider a valid glycemic status metric and include an index of residual CHD risk attributed via the atherogenic sdLDL particles.

As an average value of the previous 8–12 weeks, HbA1c measurement is robust for biological variability and is well suited to predict the occurrence and progression of chronic complications [6, 12, 13]. Hence, it is used as a gold standard to assess glycemic status and diabetes-related outcomes [6]. Likewise, the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) serves as a surrogate measure for the less feasible sdLDL particle assay and predicts CHD risk better [16]. It can also be easily computed from the standard lipid parameters without adding any extra cost [16]. therefore, the present cross-sectional study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the glycemic status and coronary heart disease risk of persons with T2DM using HbA1c and AIP. Accordingly, we found that significant proportion of them had poor glycemic control and increased risk for CHD.

Methods and materials

Study setting

The study was conducted in two general hospitals: Adigrat Hospital from the Eastern zone and Mekelle Hospital from the Mekelle especial zone of Tigray Region, North Ethiopia. Both hospitals serve as referral centers for health facilities in their respective zones including a stand-alone clinic for Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) like diabetes. A respective of 527 and 684 persons with DM were under follow-up in Adigrat and Mekelle Hospitals during the study period.

Study design and participants

A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted from September to November 2019. Participants were individuals 18 years and above with T2DM under clinical follow-up during the study period. Pregnant or breastfeeding women or individuals with documented cognitive impairment were excluded.

Sample size and sampling technique

Using single population proportion formula, we calculated a sample size of 421, taking a 58.8% prevalence of poor glycemic control among persons with T2DM in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [17], reliability coefficient Z = 1.96 at a 95% confidence interval, a margin of error (d) = 0.05 and 10% non-response rate. With proportional allocation, 237 and 184 participants were enrolled from Mekelle and Adigrat Hospitals, respectively, through systematic sampling using the hospital registry as a frame.

Data collection

Socio-demographic and lifestyle data

Demographic, socioeconomic, and lifestyle data were collected through face-to-face interviews using a pretested structured questionnaire that was developed by the investigators. The socioeconomic questionnaire was adapted from Demographic Health Survey (DHS) [18]. The lifestyle questionnaire was adopted from the WHO stepwise approach (STEPS) instrument [19].

Clinical information and anthropometry

Clinical information was retrieved from medical records. Body weight was measured to the nearest 0.5 kg (Seca 755 with a stadiometer, Seca, Hamburg, Germany) and height to the nearest 0.5 cm (Seca 755 with a stadiometer, Seca, Hamburg, Germany) with the subjects positioned at the Frankfurt Plane and the four points (heel, calf, buttocks, and shoulder) touching the vertical stand. Waist and hip circumferences were measured using a stretch-resistant metric tape with subjects standing with their feet fairly close together and their weight equally distributed to each leg. Waist circumference was measured in the horizontal plane, midway between the iliac crest and the lower rib margin. Hip circumference was measured at the highest extension of the buttock. Both measurements were taken in duplicates, recorded to the nearest 0.5 cm. The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) was derived from the average record dividing the WC (cm) by the HC (cm). Likewise, waist- to- height ratio (WhtR) was calculated via dividing WC (cm) by height in meter square (m2). All the measurements were taken with participants in minimal clothing and barefoot [19, 20].

Determination of physical activity status

Physical activity of participants was collected as part of the lifestyle interview through Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) [21]. The total time spent in physical activity during a full week period including activity for work, during transport and leisure time (sports) and the intensity of the physical activities were accounted in the process. To calculate total physical activity metabolic equivalent minute (MET) values were applied to the time variables in the GPAQ data according to the intensity of the activity (moderate or vigorous). Four (4) and eight (8) MET values were applied for moderate and vigorous intensity activity, respectively. Accordingly, total physical activity in MET-minutes/week was calculated by multiplying the total numbers of minutes spend in moderate-intensity physical activity by 4 and total numbers of minutes spend in vigorous-intensity physical activity by 8.

Blood pressure measurement

Blood pressure was measured using a digital sphygmomanometer (OMRON, Brazil) with the arm held on a table at heart level. Duplicate measurements of systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were taken at 5 minutes intervals after the participant has rested in a chair for at least 5 min. An average of the two readings was recorded in units of millimeter mercury [19].

Biochemical measurements

Whole blood and serum samples were taken after overnight fasting for biochemical analysis. About 6 ml of venous blood was collected into two vacutainer tubes; one with serum separator (SST™) and the other with EDTA anticoagulant. The blood drawn into an EDTA-containing tube was refrigerated at 4°C and was subjected to HbA1c determination in Humameter A1C. The blood collected in the serum separator tube was allowed to clot for 30 minutes and centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 5 minutes to separate the serum from the formed elements. Right after that, serum samples were aseptically aliquoted into cryotubes using disposable rubber pipettes and stored at -70°c until the time of analysis. Finally, serum samples were thawed and analyzed for lipid parameters including total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), and triglycerides (TG). The analysis was carried out in pentra C 400 clinical chemistry analyzer using ABX Pentra C 400 reagents from Horiba Company. Lipid indices were calculated from the measured conventional lipid parameters. TC/ HDL ratio was calculated by dividing TC (mg/dl) to HDL (mg/dl). The atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) was calculated as a logarithmic transformation of the ratio of TG to HDL (log TG/HDL) [22].

Statistical analysis

Once checked for clarity and completeness of information data was entered into Epidata 3.1 (Xunta de Galicia, Spain & PAHO, USA) while cleaning and analysis were done using SPSS for windows version 23 (IBM Corp, New York). Wealth index was created as a proxy measure for socioeconomic status using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The index in the first component was included in the logistic regression as a covariate to represent the wealth status of the participants. Physical activity status was determined as per the WHO protocol. Individuals who scored a minimum of 600 MET-minutes per week in moderate, vigorous or combined moderate and vigorous-intensity physical activities were categorized as physically active. While individuals scoring a total physical activity less than 600 MET minutes per week were considered insufficiently active.

Baseline data of participants were summarized using descriptive statistics. Normally distributed variables were expressed using mean and standard deviation (SD), while non-normally distributed variables were log-transformed. Variables normalized with log-transformation were expressed using geometric mean and 95% CI whereas variables that remain non-Gaussian were described with median and interquartile ranges. Categorical variables were summarized using absolute frequencies and percentages. Bivariate logistic regression was used to model the association between potential risk factors and glycemic control status. Covariates with a p-value of 0.25 and less during the bivariate analysis and others assumed to have strong influence based on prior evidence were then included in the multivariable logistic model. The absence of considerable correlation among the covariates was asserted through the multicollinearity test. The level of statistical significance was set at 5% (p < 0.05).

Classification criteria and operational definition

Glycemic control

According to ADA T2DM patients who manage to keep their HbA1c below 7.0% are considered to have good glycemic control while those with ≥ 7.0% are considered to have poor glycemic control [23].

IDF criteria for metabolic syndrome

Since our participants were persons with T2DM they were classified as having MetS if central obesity (as defined by waist circumference ≥ 94 cm for men and ≥ 80 cm for women) co-exists with any one of the following components: Raised TG levels ≥150 mg/dl, or specific treatment for this lipid abnormality, reduced HDL-cholesterol < 40 mg/d in men and < 50 mg/dl in women, or specific treatment for this lipid abnormality and raised arterial blood pressure: systolic BP ≥ 130 or diastolic BP ≥ 85 mmHg or treatment of previously diagnosed hypertension [24].

NCEP-ATP III criteria for metabolic syndrome

Persons with T2DM were classified as having MetS if three or more of the following risk factors coexist: waist circumference > 102 cm for men or > 88 cm for women, serum triglyceride level ≥ 150 mg/dl, HDL cholesterol < 40 mg/dl in men or < 50 mg/dl in women, arterial blood pressure ≥ 130/85 mmHg and fasting plasma glucose ≥110 mg/dl [25].

Treatment adherence

Type 2 diabetes patients who take their medication without interruption and keep their timing as well are considered strongly adherent.

Type 2 diabetes patients who take their medication without interruption regardless of timing are considered moderately adherent.

Type 2 diabetes patients who interrupt their medication and fail to keep their timing are considered poorly adherent.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Institute of Health, Jimma University (IHRPGD/467/2018). Permission to conduct the study was acquired from Tigray Regional Health Bureau and authorities from the selected hospitals. Moreover, written informed consent was obtained from each participant and blood sample was collected on the basis of voluntariness. There was no significant harm incurred to the participants in connection with the volume of blood collected and the drawing process. We also managed to link participants having panic results with their physicians.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics

A total of 421 persons with T2DM were enrolled in this study. Their mean age was 58.2 years (+/- 11). About 53.7%) (226) were females, 83.4% (351) were urban residents, 53.4% (225) were married and 12.6% (53) were single. The remaining 12.4% (52) and 21.6% (91) were divorced and widowed, respectively. About 97.4% (410) were ethnic Tigreans and the remaining 2.6% (11) being Amhara, Oromo, and Afar. Religious-wise, 91.9% (387) were Orthodox Christianity followers and 5% (31), 2.1% (9), and 1% (4) were Muslim, Catholic, and protestants, respectively. In terms of educational status, 43.9% (185) were illiterate, 29.5% (125) were able to read and write or had primary education and 26.4% (111) were educated to secondary level and beyond.

Lifestyle and clinical features

Regarding lifestyle, 74.8% (315) were physically active and 98.1% (413) and 98.6% (415) were non-smokers and non-chat chewers, respectively (Table 1). All the participants were taking drugs for T2DM with a reported high, 387 (91.9%), adherence and a median (IQR) follow-up period of 5 (6) years. Moreover, they indicated that they use a combined diet and medication, 181(43%), approach as a means of controlling their sugar. However, their dietary self-care merely focuses on food selection [26]. About 36.8% (155) of them had one or more documented comorbidities of which hypertension was taking the lead, 101(24%).

Table 1

Lifestyle and clinical characteristics of persons with T2DM in Northern Ethiopia (n = 421).

Variable	Category	Frequency (%)
Physical activity level	Physically active	315 (74.8)
	Insufficiently active	60 (14.3)
	Sedentary	46 (10.9)
Cigarette smoking	Yes	8 (1.9)
	No	413 (98.1)
Khat chewing *	Yes	6 (1.4)
	No	415 (98.6)
Alcohol intake	Yes	119 (28.3)
	No	302 (71.7)
Alcohol intake frequency per month	0–1	48 (11.4)
	2–3	46 (10.9)
	6–12	12 (2.9)
	16 or more	13 (3.1)
Average number of daily alcoholic drinks intake	1–2	91(21.6)
	3–4	25 (5.9)
	5 and more	3 (0.7)
Duration of follow-up at DM clinic	1–5 years	223 (53)
	6–10 years	132 (31.3)
	> 11 years	66 (15.7)
Means of sugar control	Medication	95 (22.6)
	Diet & medication	181 (43)
	Exercise & medication	24 (5.7)
	Diet, exercise & medication	121 (28.7)
Type of medication for diabetes	Metformin	115 (27.3)
	Glibenclamide	69 (16.4)
	Metformin & Glibenclamide	171 (40.6)
	Insulin	62 (14.7)
	Insulin + Metformin	4 (1.0)
Treatment adherence	High	387 (91.9)
	Moderate	30 (7.1)
	Poor	4 (1)
Presence of comorbidity	Yes	155 (36.8)
	No	266 (63.2)
Type of comorbidity	Hypertension	101 (24.0)
	Nephropathy	16 (3.8)
	Neuropathy	19 (4.5)
	Retinopathy	38 (9)
	Cardiovascular	9 (2.1)
	2 or more comorbidities	24 (5.7)

*a plant used as a stimulant.

Anthropometric and biochemical status

Table 2 describes anthropometric and biochemical measurements. The mean values of BMI, TG, TC, and median of LDL were below the standard cut-offs. Whereas, the median values of WHR, WHtR, and SBP were above the cut point. Similarly, the means of HbA1c, TC/HDL, and AIP were above the cut point in both sexes. While the mean for HDL was below the cut point. This may signify that ratios or indices are more sensitive in capturing biochemical derangements than absolute measurements.

Table 2

Distribution of physical and biochemical measurements for persons with T2DM (n = 421).

Variable		N	Mean/ Median	Classification	Frequency (%)
BMI, kg/m2		421	22.5 (22.2, 22.9)*	< 18.5	53 (12.6)
				18.5–24.9	250 (59.4)
				≥ 25	118 (28)
WC	M	195	90.44 +/-12^	< 94 cm	112 (57.4)
				≥ 94 cm	83 (42.6)
	F	226	88.9 +/-12.1^	< 80 cm	53 (23.5)
				≥ 80 cm	173 (76.5)
WHR	M	195	0.94 (0.11)҂	< 0.9	70 (35.9)
				≥ 0.9	125 (64.1)
	F	226	0.89 (0.09)҂	< 0.85	69 (30.5)
				≥ 0.85	157 (69.5)
WHtR		421	0.55 (0.54, 0.55)^	< 0.5	102 (24.2)
				≥ 0.5	319 (75.8)
SBP		421	129 (23)҂	< 130 mmHg	212 (50.4)
				≥ 130 mmHg	209 (49.6)
DBP		421	80 (20)҂	< 85 mmHg	289 (68.6)
				≥ 85 mmHg	132 (31.4)
HgA1c		421	8.4 (8.2, 8.6)*	< 7%	97 (23)
				≥ 7%	324 (77)
Total cholesterol		421	180 (175.6, 184.3)*	< 200 mg/dl	273 (64.8)
				≥ 200 mg/dl	148 (35.2)
LDL		421	96.2(40.7)҂	< 100 mg/dl	240 (57)
				≥ 100 mg/dl	181 (43)
HDL	M	195	35.7 (34.4, 36.8)*	≥ 40 mg/dl	66 (33.8)
				< 40 mg/dl	129 (66.2)
	F	226	38 (36.7, 39.4)*	≥ 50 mg/dl	41(18.1)
				< 50 mg/dl	185 (81.9)
Triglyceride		421	130.4(123.7, 137.4)*	< 150 mg/dl	248 (58.9)
				≥ 150 mg/dl	173 (41.1)
TC/HDL		421	4.87 (4.75, 5.0)*	< 0.5	218 (51.8)
				> 0.5	203 (48.2)
AIP		421	0.55 (0.52, 0.58)^	< 0.11	37 (8.8)
				≥ 0.11	384 (91.2)

Abbreviations & symbols: CI, confidence interval IQR, interquartile range,

^ arithmetic mean+/-SD,

*Log transformed data and hence geometric mean (95% CI),

҂ median (IQR).

Regarding the anthropometric status of the participants, 59.4% (250) had a normal body mass index. In contrast, 60.8 (256), 67 (282), and 75.8% (319) of which had an overall elevated WC, WHR, and WhtR, respectively. Gender-based proportions for WC and WHR are presented in Table 2. As indicated in the same table, a considerable proportion of participants had also problems in maintaining their glycemic status and lipid parameters within the standard limit. A total of 77% (324) participants had poor glycemic control as demonstrated with HbA1c ≥ 7%. Likewise, 91% (383) had dyslipidemia in at least one parameter. Only 9% (38) had all four components normal while 12.4% (52) had all their values deranged. The remaining 30.9 (130), 29.7 (125) and 18.1% (76) had dyslipidemias in one, two, and three components, respectively. The most frequent type of single dyslipidemia was low HDL 74.6% (314), while in the case of mixed dyslipidemia; it was hypertriglyceridemia with low HDL 34% (143) followed by high LDL with low HDL 30.6% (129).

Coronary heart disease risk status

Fig 1 displays the coronary heart disease risk level of participants as estimated using AIP and Table 3 outlines the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. The results showed that 8.8% (37) had low risk while 4% (17) and 87.2% (367) of participants had intermediate and high risk for coronary heart disease, respectively. Likewise, metabolic syndrome was found in 57% (240) and 67.9% (289) participants according to IDF and NCEP ATP III criteria, respectively. Both criteria revealed a significant burden of metabolic syndrome among women as compared to men (P <0.001). Concerning age, those within the 45–64 years category had more prevalence of metabolic syndrome on both criteria, not significant based on IDF though. However, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome with glycemic status on either criterion.

Fig 1

Coronary heart disease risk as predicted by AIP.

Note: low risk (AIP <0.11), intermediate (AIP, 0.11–0.21) & high risk (AIP >0.21).

Table 3

Proportion of metabolic syndrome (MetS) by sex, age, and HbA1c level (n = 421).

Features		Classification criteria
		IDF			NCEP ATP III
Variable	Category	No MetS	MetS	P.value	No MetS	MetS	P. value
Sex	Male	119 (65.7)	76 (31.7)	<0.001	83 (61.5)	112 (39.1)^	<0.001
	Female	62 (34.3)	164 (68.3)		52 (38.5)	174 (60.8)
Age category	26–44	24 (13.3)	26(10.8)	0.626	23 (17)	27(9.4)	0.008
	45–64	95 (52.5)	136 (56.7)		79 (58.5)	152 (53.1)
	65+	62 (34.3)	107 (32.5)		33 (24.4)	107 (37.4)
HbA1C	< 7%	144 (79.6)	78 (75)	0.294	107 (79.3)	217 (75.9)	0.460
	≥ 7%	37 (20.4)	60 (25)		28 (20.7)	69 (24.1)

^- frequency (%),

ADA—American Diabetic Association, IDF—International Diabetes Federation, NCEP ATP III-National cholesterol education program adult treatment panel III.

Factors associated glycemic control

Table 4 shows results for bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis of factors associated with the glycemic status of the participants. In the bivariate model age at diagnosis, educational status, wealth index, duration of diabetes, treatment type, and eating behavior were significantly associated with glycemic status at the level of α = 25%. All these variables and others including physical activity level, means of sugar control, waist to height ratio (WhtR), and presence or absence of concordant comorbidities were taken into the multivariable model. The results indicated that only eating behavior, treatment type, and wealth index were able to retain their statistically significant association at the level of α = 5%. Participants having partial healthy eating behavior [AOR 1.95; CI 1.11–3.43] and taking Metformin [AOR 4.88; CI 1.91–12.44] as a treatment had good glycemic control (HbA1c <7%). On the other hand, a unit increase in wealth index was associated with a 1% decrease in achieving glycemic target [AOR 0.99; CI 0.98–0.99].

Table 4

Factors associated with the glycemic status of persons with T2DM in North Ethiopia (n = 421).

Characteristics	Category	Crude odds ratio		Adjusted odds ratio
		COR	95% CI	AOR	95% CI
Current age in year	26–44	1.05	0.50–2.21
	45–64	0.81	0.49–1.33
	65+	1.00
Age at diagnosis	21–40	0.71	0.35–1.44	1.32	0.52–3.35
	41–60	0.63	0.37–1.07	0.75	0.38–1.47
	61+	1.00		1.00
Sex	Male	1.12	0.71–1.76
	Female	1.00
Residence	Urban	1.12	0.60–2.08
	Rural	1.00
Marital status	Single	1.07	0.52–2.19
	Married	079	0.48–1.29
	Divorced/Widowed	1.00
Educational status	Illiterate	1.65	0.90–2.99	1.62	0.78–3.35
	Informal/primary	1.60	0.84–3.03	1.55	0.72–3.33
	Secondary & above	1.00		1.00
Wealth index		0.99	0.98–0.99	0.99*	0.98–0.99
Duration of DM	0–4 years	1.97	0.94–4.11	1.54	0.62–3.84
	5–10 years	1.58	0.72–3.47	1.57	0.62–4.00
	≥ 11 years	1.00		1.00
Methods of sugar control	Medication	0.88	0.47–1.64	1.24	0.59–2.64
	Diet & Medication	1.03	0.62–1.73	0.81	0.43–1.53
	Diet, execs & med	1.00		1.00
Type of medication	Metformin	3.64	1.64–8.10	4.88*	1.91–12.44
	Glebinclamide	2.07	0.85–5.05	2.21	0.80–6.11
	Metform & GLb	1.29	0.58–2.90	1.39	0.56–3.46
	Insulin	1.00		1.00
Treatment adherence	High	1.17	0.49–2.77
	Moderate	1.00
Physical activity level	Physically active	1.26	0.54–2.74	1.21	0.47–3.10
	Insufficiently active	1.25	0.49–3.21	1.14	0.38–3.45
	Sedentary	1.00		1.00
Eating behavior	Partially healthy	1.79	1.13–2.83	1.95*	1.11–3.43
	Unhealthy	1.00		1.00
Waist-to-height ratio	< 0.5	1.31	0.75–2.27	0.94	0.48–1.85
	≥ 0.5	1.00		1.00
Comorbidity	Yes	1.21	0.76–1.92	1.08	0.60–1.95
	No	1.00		1.00

*P < 0.01.

Discussion

This study was designed to assess the glycemic status and cardiovascular risk of persons with T2DM in Northern Ethiopia. The results indicated that 77% had poor glycemic control and 87.2% had high atherogenic risk for CHD. Besides, 57 and 67.9% of persons with T2DM had metabolic syndrome according to IDF and NCEP-ATP III criteria, respectively. Eating behavior and treatment type demonstrated a statistically significant association with the key indicator i.e HbA1c status.

Shreds of evidence show that strict glycemic control is crucial to prevent diabetes-related complications and hence reduce concomitant hospitalization and mortality [26]. On the other hand, poorly-controlled glycemia increases the likelihood of diabetic complications [27]. According to ADA, diabetics who failed to keep their HbA1c below 7.0% are considered to have poor glycemic control [28]. In this study poor glycemic control was observed in 77% of persons with T2DM. This is comparable with 70.8–81.9% [29-31] but higher than 48.7%–57.5% [7, 32–34] prevalence of poor glycemic control revealed in other Ethiopian settings. Again it is higher than the global estimate [27] and the rate in high-income countries [35, 36]. However, it is consistent with the poor glycemic control prevalence of, 73.7–81.8% indicated in low-income countries [37-39]. The likely reasons for the observed variation could be differences in the knowledge on glycemic control, income, treatment modality, and clinical characteristics specific to each patient. Moreover, the unmatched increase in low-income countries could be attributable of a swift nutrition transition from fiber-rich traditional foods to calorie-dense processed foods. Thus, facility and policy level efforts must be exerted to counter such adverse effects of feeding style right before overwhelming health and economic impacts happen.

Hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia generally co-exist in persons with T2DM manifesting poor glycemic control and their interaction increase the risk of vascular complications [40]. In the present study, 91% of persons with T2DM had dyslipidemia in at least one parameter. Out of these 60% had mixed dyslipidemia with 12.4% of them having all their components deranged. This finding is higher than the prevalence of overall dyslipidemia revealed in a similar study from South Ethiopia [41]. In that study, 65.6% of participants had dyslipidemia of which 48.2% were with a mixed type. However, an almost equal proportion of their participants, 11.6%, had all their components deranged like in our study. Likewise, the current result is higher than the 63.8% and 60.5–70% dyslipidemias observed in Senegal and Nigeria, respectively [42-44]. The 46.3% mixed dyslipidemia detected in Northwestern Nigeria is also lower than this study but somehow equivalent to that of Southern Ethiopia. However, the existing finding is in agreement with findings of other studies which have shown 81.1–94% dyslipidemia and as high as 57.3–75% mixed occurrence over the globe [37, 45–49]. Despite such high prevalence dyslipidemia is quite amendable. Therefore, health care providers should perform routine screening and encourage their patients’ modify their lifestyle, control their glucose, and initiate, or intensify lipid-lowering treatment when warranted.

Low HDL-C was the most common form of single dyslipidemia observed in 74.6% of persons with T2DM. And hypertriglyceridemia with low HDL-C was the most frequent combined type (34%). In tandem with this finding, the highest frequency of low HDL was also apparent in other studies [46, 48]. In the United Arab Emirates, low HDL was evident in 60% [48]. Similarly, it was seen amidst 69.11% of participants in Algeria [46]. Whereas, in Bangladesh hypertriglyceridemia appeared to be the most frequent type of single dyslipidemia, 60.7% [49]. Regarding the combined type, hypertriglyceridemia with low HDL-C observed in this study is consistent with that of 35.4% indicated in Bangladesh [49]. It is also comparable with the 41% shown in Nigeria [50]. This phenomenon confirms the notion that the pattern of diabetic dyslipidemia is more atherogenic than other types of dyslipidemia [51].

Reinforcing the aforementioned view, an AIP value (>0.11) demonstrating an intermediate or high-risk level of CHD was found in 91.2% of participants in this study. Again, this is in agreement with an increased risk level of AIP detected amongst 99.3% of persons with T2DM in Bangladesh [49]. The most likely cause of atherogenic dyslipidemia in T2DM is increased hepatic TG synthesis secondary to insulin resistance mediated free fatty acid flux. The increased triglyceride in turn modifies the circulating HDL and LDL-C leading to an atherogenic triad of hypertriglyceridemia, low HDL-C, and increased concentration of sdLDL particles [50, 52]. Such atherogenic triad establishes a proatherosclerotic milieu in the plasma and if it is not timely intervened will end up with premature atherosclerosis. Hence, it is worth targeting a high concentration of TGs for therapy as a means of curving this devastating complication.

Poor glycemic control and dyslipidemia are independent risk factors for CHD. Hence, T2DM individuals with elevated HbA1c and dyslipidemia can be considered as a very high-risk group for CHD. Substantiating this assumption more than half of the persons with T2DM in the current study had metabolic syndrome, which itself is an independent clinical marker for cardiac morbidity and mortality. The 57% prevalence of MetS revealed using IDF criterion is exactly matching with a study finding from Ethiopia, 57% [11], and that of a systematic review in Sub-Saharan Africa, 57.15% [53]. However, it is higher than the 51.1% demonstrated from another setting of Ethiopia [10] and lower than rates of 63.6, 64.9, and 66.8% observed in Nigeria, Iran, and Nepal, respectively [54-56]. On the other hand, the 67.9% prevalence of MetS obtained using the NCEP criterion is comparable with the rates of 70.1 and 70.3% both from Ethiopia [11, 57] and 64.8% indicated on a systematic review in Sub-Saharan Africa [53]. Nonetheless, it is higher than the 45.9 and 59.4% reported rates from Ethiopia [58, 59] and 58% from Ghana [60]. Conversely, it is lower than the occurrences of MetS among 73.4, 73.9, 75.6, and 96% Iranian, Nepalese, Caucasian, and Indians with T2DM, respectively [55, 56, 61, 62].

Ethnic and cultural variations may have a great role in the observed discrepancies in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome between Ethiopians and people from other nations [63]. However, the inconsistencies do exist even among Ethiopians. Hence, the variation could also arise from differences in age, gender composition, economic status, glycemic status, duration of T2DM, and largely lifestyle. For example, in this study significantly higher prevalence of MetS was found among women as compared to men. The increased prevalence of MetS among women could be attributable to hormonal oral contraceptive uses that can decrease the sensitivity of muscles to insulin which in turn can lead to impaired glucose metabolism and dyslipidemia [64]. It could also be due to menopause induced changes in body fat distribution precipitating its abdominal accumulation [65]. Potentiating this assumption, more women had more abdominal obesity as evidenced by waist circumference than men in this study.

Poor glycemic control is assumed to be the main perpetrator for most of the aforementioned clinical problems occurring among persons with T2DM [27]. Hence, optimization of glycemic control is crucial to curb the rising complications and alleviate the staggering health and economic impacts linked with [23, 66]. This necessitates the identification of factors that need to be targeted for intervention. One of the factors found to be associated with good glycemic control in this study was healthy eating behavior. The odds of good glycemic control was two times higher in those having healthy eating behavior as compared to persons with T2DM following unhealthy eating behavior. The favorable effect of a healthy diet demonstrated in this study corroborates the ADA’s view stating healthy diet helps the achievement of glycemic targets and maintenance of proper weight which together help reduce complications and improve patients’ quality of life [23]. This is chiefly because a healthy diet that favors eating whole grains, non-starchy vegetables, fruits, legumes, seafood, lean meats, low-fat dairy products, and vegetable oils and avoids trans-fats, refined carbohydrates, and sugar-sweetened beverages is rich in fiber and low in its glycemic load. Likewise, the relevance of healthy eating for better glycemic control was shown by other researchers [67, 68].

Treatment type also influences the outcome of glycemic control. In this study, better glycemic control was found among participants who used Metformin only. The likelihood of having good glycemic status was almost 5 times higher among persons with T2DM taking Metformin as compared to insulin. This may be because Metformin has good antihyperglycemic efficacy at a lower risk of hypoglycemia and hence encourages compliance to treatment [69]. Besides, higher odds of having good glycemic control was also observed among persons with T2DM who were taking Glebinclamide or a combination of metformin and glebinclamide relative to insulin, statistically insignificant though. Similarly, best glycemic control was attained on people taking monotherapy, followed by a combination of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) as compared with those getting a combination of insulin and OHAs in most other studies [8, 70–72]. The variation could be explained by the difficulty of taking more drugs or ineffective insulin use related to inconvenience with storage and/or injection [73, 74]. Hence, efforts should be made to retain the patients on monotherapy.

Conclusions

This study revealed that a significant proportion of persons with T2DM in North Ethiopia had substantial coronary heart disease (CHD) risk concomitant with poor glycemic control. From diagnostic rationale it has used HbA1c which is superior to fasting serum glucose in terms of accuracy and independent tracking of CHD risk. Substantiating its strength the median LDL-C in this study was within the normal range whereas the mean AIP was fivefold higher than the cutoff. This implies that atherogenic dyslipidemia continues to contribute to CHD risk even when LDL-C is set at target. This in turn underscores the need for targeting atherogenic dyslipidemia on top of stringent LDL-C goal. Hence, estimating the residual risk of CHD connected with atherogenic dyslipidemia using AIP was a viable approach. In other words, making AIP assessment part and parcel of the routine lipid profile would have remarkable implications in improving the clinical management and epidemiologic prediction.

Healthy eating behavior and metformin monotherapy were associated with good glycemic outcomes. Hence, policymakers should promote dietary counseling and preparation of dietary guidelines contextualized to the setting of the patients. Moreover, frontline health care providers should counsel their patients to integrate healthy eating with proper medication use. This would prevent a rapid transition of patients from one to the next level of a regimen. As a shortcoming, the AIP values of the participants were not compared with their angiographic findings. Therefore, building on the findings of the current study, further research is warranted to correlate AIP with angiographically confirmed CHD.

English version of data collection tool.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Tigrigna version of data collection tool.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

19 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-17486

High atherogenic risk concomitant with elevated HbA1c among persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus in North Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gebreyesus,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xiao-Feng Yang, MD, PhD, FAHA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed the survey or questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. If the questionnaire is published, please provide a citation to the (a) questionnaire and/or (b) original publication associated with the questionnaire

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: - We prefer if you use the third person singular, instead of the first person singular or plural (e.g. "we").

- The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives your debate or argument.

- More suitable title should be selected for the article. Title should decrease to 10-12 words.

- The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.

- It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction.

- It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done before.

- More suitable title should be selected for the table 3 instead of “Distribution of metabolic syndrome (MetS) by sex, age, and glycemic status based on classification criteria (n=421).”.

- It is suggested to add articles entitled “D. Serwaa et al. Prevalence and Determinant of Erectile Dysfunction in Type II Diabetes Mellitus and Healthy Men”, “D. R. Paudel. Catastrophic Health Expenditure: An Experience from Health Insurance Program in Nepal” and “Phuoc-Tan Diep. Oxytocin May be Superior to Gliptins as a Potential Treatment for Diabetic COVID-19 Patients” to the literature review.

- Page 9: the following paragraph is unclear, so please reorganize that:

“Permission was acquired from Tigray Regional Health Bureau and participating institutions (Adigrat and Mekelle General Hospitals). Each participant provided informed consent and voluntarily gave a blood sample. There was no significant harm in connection with the volume of blood collected and the collection process. Participants with panic results were immediately linked to their physician.”

- Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results, which are not enough.

- “Notation” should be added to the article.

- DOI of the references must be added (you can use “" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://crossref.org/").

- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

Reviewer #2: The authors ran a cross sectional study of 421 T2DM participants with the purpose to assess the glycemic status and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk using HbA1c and atherogenic index of plasma. Their findings indicate that High AIP along with poor glycemic control as assessed by HbA1c, is associated with increased of CHD among diabetic patients. The study in general carry’s some novelty and clinical significance and it’s been designed well and sound. My comments:

Abstract: AIP, wasn’t defined when first mentioned.

Methods: line 142, the assessment of physical activity in the study wasn’t clearly described. Please do. Other than that, the methods were sound and presented in detail.

Results: The results are mostly limited to descriptive analysis, it’s not clear that is delivers exactly the message in the conclusions. The authors didn’t exactly assess the risk of CHD, as they stated in the abstract, they didn’t show the results or the statistical tools they used to assess that. Complete reformatting of the results section and running the required testes to clearly prove their conclusions is required.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

7 Sep 2021

Response to Reviewers

Dear esteemed editor and reviewers we heavily thank for your time and expertise; here follows is our response to your comments and suggestions and the manuscript is revised accordingly.

Editor comments

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements, including those for file naming.

- We tried to review the templates and accordingly customize our manuscript to fit into the requirements.

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that other could replicate the analysis. For instance, if you developed the survey or questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copy right more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both original language and English, as supporting information. If the questionnaire is published, please provide a citation to the (a) questionnaire and /or (b) original publication associated with the questionnaire.

- The tool used to assess demographic background, diabetic follow and nutrition information as well as the anthropometric and biochemical data of the participants is included as supporting information both in the original language and English versions. Moreover, references for other tools utilized in the study are cited under the data collection section on page 6, line 103-104.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial manager.

- The corresponding author has already a pre-existing ORCID iD and is authenticated in Editorial Manager following the given direction.

Reviewer ♯1 comments

�  We prefer if you use the third person singular, instead of the first person singular or plural (e.g. “we”).

- Thanks for your suggestion; however, we followed same approach. We are glad to amend if there is any that you could specify.

�  The major defect of this study is the debate or argument is not clearly stated in the introduction section. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the authors to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives your debate or argument.

- Thanks for the remark. Being a metabolic problem by itself, T2DM is also a formidable risk factor for cardiovascular problems, chiefly coronary heart disease (CHD). The attributable risk of T2DM for CHD equates with the level of glycemia. Hence, integrating periodic monitoring of glycemic status with the management process is critical to reduce or avert the CHD risk. Existing practices in Ethiopia utilize fasting serum glucose as a means of monitoring glycemic status. As a diagnostic tool fasting serum glucose measurement indicates the subject’s sugar level at the time of blood sampling. However, blood glucose concentrations are continually modified by various factors like diet, exercise and stress. Hence, fasting glucose measurement is subjected to substantial influence from day-to-day variations and hence, lacks reproducibility. In contrast, the concentration of HbA1c in the blood reflects the average glucose over the preceding 2-3 months and is robust for short-term variability. Therefore, HbA1c is more accurate and tracks the glycemic outcomes of persons with T2DM across time much better than the fasting glucose measurement. And this argument to use HbA1c over the less reproducible and predictive fasting serum glucose is portrayed in the introduction in a concise way.

- In addition, sizeable risk of CHD attributable of T2DM is mediated by dyslipidemia. Hence, periodic monitoring of dyslipidemia among persons with T2DM is an established practice in the management of persons with T2DM. This is decisive to gauge the risk of CHD and caliber the management intensity accordingly. In the Ethiopian setting, the monitoring of lipid derangement among persons with T2DM is carried out by quantitative measurement of lipid parameters (routine lipid profile). Among these, LDL-C is considered to be the primary target for therapy. However, even with reducing LDL-C to the recommended level a substantial risk of coronary heart disease remains unfixed. This residual risk is connected with hypertriglyceridemia induced remodeling of HDL and LDL. Such qualitative alterations are characterized by a decrease in HDL size and enhancement of its renal clearance and hence loss of anti-atherogenic function.

- On the other hand, the remodeling of LDL-C creates a preponderance of small, dense LDL (sdLDL) particles that are highly susceptible to oxidation and more atherogenic than their precursors. Overall, the qualitative alteration ends up in atherogenic dyslipidemia. However, assessing lipid levels through the routine lipid profile ignores the attribution from the qualitative dyslipidemia. Lipoprotein sub-fractionation of LDL particles is the best way to measure the residual risk attributed by sdLDL particles. However, this is financially and technically less feasible in a developing setting. Fortunately, atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) calculated as the ratio of log (TG/HDL) correlates well with the particle size and composition and serves as a surrogate measure for the less feasible sdLDL particle assay. And our intention to use AIP which is readily calculated from the routine lipid profile and account for the residual risk of CHD attributed by qualitative dyslipidemia is briefly described in the introduction.

�  More suitable title should be selected for the article. Title should decrease to 10-12 words

- Suggestion accepted and correction is made as indicated in track change (page 1, line 1-3). For your information PLOS ONE guideline allows up to 250 characters but in our case the title contains less than 100 characters.

�  The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be stand alone.

- Comment accepted and the introduction and result sections of the abstract are modified as indicated in track changes (abstract section on page 2, line 20-21 and line 34-35). Regarding the conclusion, the aim of the study was to assess glycemic status and CHD risk using HbA1c and AIP, respectively. Hence, we found high AIP level together with poor glycemic control signifying that the participants have an increased risk for CHD. This is parsimoniously presented as we have to comply with the word limitation stated for the abstract by the journal.

�  It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction

- Comment accepted and correction made as indicated in track changes (page 4, line 72-75).

�  It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done before

- Thanks for your suggestion. As can be confirmed from the discussion section we tried to compare our findings with other similar studies from the literature. For instance our finding on glycemic status (HbA1c) is compared with related articles from the literature in the discussion section on page 20, line 171-175. Likewise, we tried to follow similar manner for the remaining findings unless we faced dearth of relevant articles.

�  More suitable title should be selected for the table 3 instead of “Distribution of metabolic syndrome (MetS) by sex, age and glycemic status based on classification criteria (n=421).

- Comment accepted and the title is modified as indicated in track changes in the result section page 19 line 271.

�  It is suggested to add articles entitled “D.Serwaa et al. Prevalence and Determinants of Erectile Dysfunction in Type II diabetes mellitus and healthy men”; “D.R. Paudel. Catastrophic Health Expenditure: An Experience from Health Insurance Program in Nepal” and “Phuoc-Tan Diep. Oxytocin may be Superior to Gliptins as a Potential Treatment for Diabetic COVID-19 patients” to the literature review.

- Suggestion considered and included in where they fit in the paper as reference number 2 and number 67.

�  Page 9: the following paragraph is unclear, so please reorganize that:

- Comment duly accepted and reorganized as indicated in track changes under the methods section on page 10-11, line 207-212.

�  Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the results, which are not enough.

- Comment accepted and explanations are added in the result section as indicated in track changes under the result section page 12, line 228-232; page 15, 240-241; page 18, 259-262.

�  “Notation” should be added to the article

- Comment accepted and a notations is added to table 4 and fig 1

�  DOI of the references must be added (you can use “http://crossref.org/”)

- Comment accepted and DOI of the references is included

�  Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and the future study in this session.

- Thanks for your important insights and the conclusion section is restructured as indicated in track changes under the conclusion section on page 416-435.

Reviewer ♯2 comments

�  Abstract: AIP wasn’t defined when first used

- Comment accepted and correction made as indicated in track changes under the abstract section on page 2, line 22-23.

�  Methods: Line 142, the assessment of physical activity in the study wasn’t clearly described. Please do.

- Comment accepted and the information on how physical activity is assessed is indicated in track changes under the methods section on page 6-7, line 119-229 and page 8, line 159-163.

�  Results: The results are mostly limited to descriptive analysis. It is not clear that is delivers the message in the conclusion. The author didn’t exactly assess the risk of CHD, as they stated in the abstract, they didn’t show the results of the statistical tools they used to assess that. Complete reformation of the results section and running the required tests to clearly prove their conclusion is required.

- Thanks for the meticulous view. As described under the introduction section on page 4, line 68-70 and methods section on page 8, line number 150-151, the coronary heart disease risk was assessed using atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) as a surrogate marker of CHD risk. And AIP is computed taking the logarithmic transformation of the ratio of triglyceride to HDL-C, (log TG/HDL), which are components of the routine lipid profile. The cutoff value for AIP is 0.11. Hence, as described in the result section on page 16 and figure 1, the participants were classified in to three risk categories based on their AIP values. Persons with T2DM who had AIP value 0.11 were classified as having low risk. Whereas, persons with T2DM who had AIP level 0.11 to 0.21, and AIP level 0.21 were classified in to intermediate and high risk categories, respectively. Therefore, the participants CHD risk was assessed using AIP as a surrogate marker and were classified as having low, intermediate and high risk accordingly. Please see a notation added to figure 1.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

31 Dec 2021

High atherogenic risk concomitant with elevated HbA1c among persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus in North Ethiopia

PONE-D-21-17486R1

Dear Dr. Gebreyesus,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Xiao-Feng Yang, MD, PhD, FAHA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Excellent! Since the authors have made significant revisions according to the comments raised by all reviewers, I am supportive of this study for publication in PONE.

Reviewer #3: Research Article titled “High atherogenic risk concomitant with elevated HbA1c among persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus in North Ethiopia” attempted to assess the glycemic status and CHD risk of T2DM using HbA1c and atherogenic index of plasma.

The strength of this paper is to analyze over four hundred T2DM patients in North Ethiopia to assess the CHD risk and glycemic status of T2DM by using HbA1c and AIP. The authors responded well to the reviewer’s comments, which could be accepted.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

24 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-17486R1

High atherogenic risk concomitant with elevated HbA1c among persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus in North Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Gebreyesus:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Xiao-Feng Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE