RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Diabetic control and compliance using HbA1C testing guidelines in public healthcare facilities of Gauteng province, South Africa
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.11.24.22282705
DO 10.1101/2022.11.24.22282705
A1 Kone Ngalulawa
A1 Cassim Naseem
A1 Maposa Innocent
A1 George Jaya Anna
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/27/2022.11.24.22282705.abstract
AB Objective This study aimed at evaluating diabetic control and compliance with testing guidelines, across healthcare facilities of Gauteng Province, South Africa as well as factors associated with time to achieve control. South Africa’s estimated total unmet need for care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is 80%.Research design, methods and findings The data of 511781 patients were longitudinally evaluated. Results were reported by year, age category, race, sex, facility and test types. HbA1c of ≤7 was reported as normal, >7 - ≤9 as poor control and >9% as very poor control. The chi-squared test was used to assess the association between a first-ever HbA1c status and variables listed above. The Kaplan Meier analysis was used to assess probability of attaining control among those who started with out-of-control HbA1C. The extended Cox regression model assessed the association between time to attaining HbA1C control from date of treatment initiation and several covariates. We reported hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals and p-values.Data is reported for 511781 patients with 705 597 laboratory results. Poorly controlled patients constituted 51.5%, with 29.6% classified as very poor control. Most poorly controlled patients had only one test over the entire study period. Amongst those who started with poor control status and had at least two follow-up measurements, the likelihood of achieving good control was higher in males (aHR=1.16; 95% CI:1.12-1.20; p<0.001) and in those attending care at hospitals (aHR=1.99; 95% CI:1.92-2.06; p<0.001).Conclusion This study highlights poor adherence to guidelines for diabetes monitoring.Author(s) summary- Worldwide, diabetes mellitus is an escalating public health crisis and, the second among the top ten leading natural causes of death in South Africa.- With most patients exhibiting poor control using HbA1C testing, this study undertook an audit to check the percentage of patients who follow testing guidelines for monitoring diabetes in the public healthcare facilities of Gauteng province, South Africa.- Overall, the guidelines for monitoring diabetes are not followed.- The study highlights the need to find innovative ways to improve monitoring of diabetic patients in an effort to curb complications of the disease.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC)(Medical), at the University of the Witwatersrand (M1911163).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.Not ApplicableI 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).Not ApplicableI 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.Not ApplicableAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.