Article Sidebar
Keywords:
therapeutic management of diabetes glycaemic control HbA<sub>1c</sub> levels
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
Material submitted for publication in the Journal of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes of South Africa (JEMDSA) is accepted provided it has not been published elsewhere. JEMDSA reserves copyright of the material published. Neither JEMDSA nor the Publisher may be held responsible for statements made by the authors.
Main Article Content
Diabetes guidelines and clinical practice: is there a gap? The South African cohort of the International Diabetes Management Practices Study
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this survey was to determine the therapeutic management of patients with diabetes in the South African private healthcare environment.
Design: The International Diabetes Management Practices Study is an international multicentre and observational study. In this paper, the local South African data from the cross-sectional cohort study are discussed.
Setting: South African healthcare providers who were involved in the management of patients with diabetes.
Subjects: Subjects included male and female adult patients who were diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and who consulted their healthcare provider during a specified period of two weeks.
Outcome measures: Information on patient demographic and socio-economic profiles, relevant medical histories, data on previous and concomitant antidiabetic treatments, glycaemic status, patient education levels and the impact of diabetes on absenteeism and hospitalisation was collected.
Results: A total of 899 patients from 54 healthcare centres in South Africa participated. The mean age of patients in the study was 53.35 ± 14.47 years. The duration of diabetes was longer in type 1 diabetic patients. Of the type 2 diabetic patients, 46.4% were on oral antidiabetic monotherapy and 44.1% on two oral medications. Metformin was the most commonly prescribed oral medication. Of the 242 patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin and oral combination, 175 were on one oral medication combined with insulin therapy. The mean haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of study participants was 8.2%.
Conclusion: These data demonstrate that in accordance with current global findings, the glycaemic control of the majority of a cohort of patients with diabetes managed in the private healthcare sector in South Africa was suboptimal when assessed according to HbA1c levels.
Design: The International Diabetes Management Practices Study is an international multicentre and observational study. In this paper, the local South African data from the cross-sectional cohort study are discussed.
Setting: South African healthcare providers who were involved in the management of patients with diabetes.
Subjects: Subjects included male and female adult patients who were diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and who consulted their healthcare provider during a specified period of two weeks.
Outcome measures: Information on patient demographic and socio-economic profiles, relevant medical histories, data on previous and concomitant antidiabetic treatments, glycaemic status, patient education levels and the impact of diabetes on absenteeism and hospitalisation was collected.
Results: A total of 899 patients from 54 healthcare centres in South Africa participated. The mean age of patients in the study was 53.35 ± 14.47 years. The duration of diabetes was longer in type 1 diabetic patients. Of the type 2 diabetic patients, 46.4% were on oral antidiabetic monotherapy and 44.1% on two oral medications. Metformin was the most commonly prescribed oral medication. Of the 242 patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin and oral combination, 175 were on one oral medication combined with insulin therapy. The mean haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of study participants was 8.2%.
Conclusion: These data demonstrate that in accordance with current global findings, the glycaemic control of the majority of a cohort of patients with diabetes managed in the private healthcare sector in South Africa was suboptimal when assessed according to HbA1c levels.
