Introduction

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is a worldwide major public health problem. It is a global crisis that threatens the health and economy of all nations, particularly developing countries. It is one of the main chronic diseases currently affecting humankind, regardless of socioeconomic status and geographic location. It is the fourth or fifth leading cause of death in most high-income countries and there is a substantial evidence that it is changing into an epidemic in many low- and middle-income countries. Diabetes is certain to be one of the most challenging health problems in the 21st century [1].

The increasing prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus (DM) worldwide has led to a situation where approximately 360 million people had DM in 2011, of whom more than 95% had T2DM. This number is estimated to increase to 552 million by 2030 and it is thought that about half of those will be unaware of their diagnosis [2].

The states of The Co-operation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) including Qatar have some of the highest rates of T2DM in the world. Five of the International Diabetes Federation’s (IDF’s) ‘top 10’ countries for diabetes prevalence in 2010 and in 2030 are in this region [3]. In December 2011, the IDF showed that the prevalence of diabetes among adults aged 20 to 79 years in Qatar was 20.2% [2]. Also in Qatar, risk factors associated with diabetes were examined in a population-based study. As expected, obesity, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and heart disease were found to increase the likelihood of having diabetes. In addition, smoking habits and family history of diabetes were major contributors to diabetes [4].

The goal of treatment in T2DM is to achieve and maintain optimal Blood Glucose (BG), lipid, and Blood Pressure (BP) levels to prevent or delay chronic complications of diabetes [5]. A patient’s glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) level is an indicator of the status of glycemic control over the previous 3 months. A cut-off point of < 7% indicates optimal glycemic control. Each percentage point reduction in HbA_1c was associated with a 35% reduction in micro-vascular complications and a 7% reduction in all-cause mortality [6]. Glycemic control was found to be associated with many factors such as age, race/ethnicity, duration of diabetes, type and number of medications taken, obesity, psychological variables, and family support [7].

Promotion of Physical Activity (PA) is one of the most important and effective strategies for reducing the risk of several chronic diseases including T2DM, Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD), osteoporosis, obesity and some types of cancer [8].

Compliance of diabetic patients with medical advice is essential for controlling the disease; it is affected by many factors related to the patient, the disease, the physician and the family [9].

During recent decades T2DM became a major public health problem affecting huge number of the population with multiple complications that decrease the health-related quality of life and contribute to suboptimal physical and mental functioning and earlier mortality. Poor glycemic control is associated with higher rate of complications and worse prognosis among diabetic patients. Identification of factors associated with poor glycemic control may help in planning for more comprehensive strategy of care, and better quality of life of diabetic patients.

Based on the above, this work is essential to propose an appropriately tailored and culturally relevant approach for intervention. The main goal of this study is identifying some of the most relevant factors associated with poor glycemic control among diabetic patients attending Primary Health Care Centers in Qatar.

Materials and Methods

Study design and settings

A cross-sectional approach was utilized in this study. The study was conducted at non-communicable disease (NCD) clinics in health centers related to the Primary Health Care Corporation (PHCC).

Study population and data collection

Participants were adults diagnosed with T2DM and registered in the NCD clinics. Inclusion criteria included being adult aged 18 years or more, with history T2DM and willing to participate. Patients with communication problems (unable to answer the questions as those with dementia, dysarthria, and hearing impairment) were excluded.

Different tools have used in data collection included pre-coded structured interviewing questionnaire, anthropometric measurements and review of medical records.

Sample size calculation and sampling technique

Initial sample size calculated was 335. After adding a design effect, the total sample size became 510. Stratified cluster sample technique with proportional allocation was utilized. Simple random sampling conducted to select nine health centers; three from each geographical region covered the country. A systematic random sampling technique utilized to recruit the participants.

Definitions of Study Variables

Dependent variable

Glycemic Control measured by HbA_1c percent which indicates the glycemic control during the past three months. A HbA_1c level >7% categorized as poor control, while HbA_1c ≤ 7% categorized as good control [10,11]. The last HbA_1c reading within the medical record of the participant was used.

Independent variables

Glycemic control relation with several independent variables were assessed within this study. The list of these variables included duration of diabetes mellitus, adherence to (diet, medication, and follow up at the clinic), management strategy, Comorbidities (frequency and type) based on documented diagnosis, blood pressure control (less than 140/80 mmHg or less than 130/80 in presence of nephropathy was considered as controlled), [12] blood lipid control (desirable/undesirable) (low density lipoprotein cholesterol “LDL-C”, high density lipoprotein cholesterol “HDL-C”, Triglyceride level), body mass index (BMI), and diabetic complications (frequency and type) based on documented diagnosis.

LDL-C level of <70 mg/dL (<1.8 mmol/L) in very high risk diabetic patients (DM, combined with documented CVD, sever chronic kidney disease or with one or more cardiovascular risk factors and/or target organ damage) or <100 mg/dL (<2.5 mmol/L) in high risk diabetic patients (without any other CVD risk factor and free of target organ damage) was considered as desirable. HDL-C level of >40 mg/dL (> 1.03 mmol/L) among men and > 50 mg/dL (> 1.29 mmol/L) among women was considered as desirable. Triglycerides level of <150 mg/dL (< 1.7 mmol/L) was considered as desirable [13,14].

The WHO adult cutoff points of BMI were used: < 18.5 as underweight, 18.5-24.9 as normal weight, 25-29.9 as overweight and 30-34.9 as class I obesity, 35-39.9 as class II obesity and ≥ 40 as class III obesity [15].

Data analysis

The statistical packages SPSS 22 software was used in data analysis. A descriptive analysis in the form of means and Standard Deviation (SD) was used whenever appropriate. Frequencies and percentages were carried out according to the type of data. Chi-square (X²) test, Pearson correlation coefficient and multivariate logistic regression were used as needed. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 (two tailed).

Ethical considerations

Acquired approvals have been taken. An informed written consent was obtained from each participant. Privacy of participants and confidentiality of data were assured. Results of the completed questionnaires were communicated with the patients and treating physician for the possibility for further actions.

Results

Figure 1 shows distribution of patients with T2DM according to HbA_1c level. It indicates that more than one third of the patients (36.3%) had good glycemic control with a HbA_1c ≤ 7%. HbA_1c level of 8-8.9% found among 20% of participants, followed by 16.8% had a level of 7.1-7.9%. HbA_1c level of ≥ 10% found in 15.0% of subjects.

Table 1 shows the relation between poor glycemic control and different factors. The difference was found to be statistically significant in case of the duration of diabetes, management strategy, and self-monitoring of blood glucose.

The results demonstrated a significant positive correlation between HbA1c level and the duration of diabetes (r = 0.153, p = 0.001).

The relationship between comorbidities (by number and type) and glycemic control presented in Table 2.

Table 3 reveals that poor glycemic control was more common among patients who had three complications or more (100%) compared to those who have one or two complications and those who do not have (71.3%, 61.1% respectively) and the difference in glycemic control as regards the number of complications was statistically significant (χ2 = 7.264, p-value = 0.026).

Table 4 demonstrates the relation between lipid profile and blood pressure with glycemic control of the participants. It revealed that poor glycemic control was more common among diabetic patients who had undesirable triglycerides (70.0%) compared to those who had desirable triglycerides (59.3%) and the difference was found to be statistically significant (χ2= 6.136, p= 0.013). However, the differences in glycemic control as regards LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and blood pressure were not statistically significant.

Table 5 reveals that patients who were on diet, oral hypoglycemic drugs and insulin had 6.90 times higher risk of having poor glycemic control compared to those who were on diet and oral hypoglycemic drugs only (OR = 6.90, CI = 3.60-13.20).

The table also demonstrates that patients who don’t practice self-monitoring of blood glucose had 3.66 more risk of having poor glycemic control compared to those practicing self-monitoring of blood glucose (OR = 3.66, CI = 2.40-5.60).

It can be shown that patients who had undesirable triglycerides had 1.65 higher risk of having poor glycemic control compared to those who had desirable triglycerides (OR = 1.65, CI = 1.09-2.50).

The tables also reveals that patients with duration of diabetes of five years or more had increased risk of poor glycemic control by 1.63 times compared to those of less than five years duration (OR = 1.63, CI = 1.03-2.57).

Discussion

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a progressive disease in which the risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, micro-vascular complications and mortality are all strongly associated with hyperglycemia [16]. Achieving glycemic control is the main therapeutic goal for the prevention of organ damage and other complications of diabetes [17].

Many studies from different countries have shown variable results regarding poor glycemic control among type 2 diabetic patients. This variation could be partially explained by different cutoff points used for categorization of poor glycemic control among these patients enrolled in studies. In Jordan, the prevalence of poor glycemic control was 65.1% using a cutoff point of HbA_1c ≥ 7% [17]. In Kuwait, the prevalence of poor glycemic control was 66.7% using a cutoff point of HbA_1c ≥ 8%. On the other hand, the prevalence of poor glycemic control was 46.7% in Pakistan using a cutoff point of HbA_1c > 7.5% [18,19].

In the present study, the level of HbA_1c > 7% was utilized as an indicator for uncontrolled glycaemia according to European DM guidelines, American diabetes association, and Primary Health Care National Guidelines in Qatar [10,13,20]. The results of the present study, revealed a prevalence of uncontrolled glycaemia of 63.7%. Different studies have used same indicator as our study and revealed different outcome such as two studies from KSA (76.4%, and 78%.) [18,21].

In addition to the use of different cutoff points of HbA_1c level, differences in the degree of glycemic control in different studies may reflect variability in the quality of services provided in different countries, including availability of certain medications, guidelines, patient’s education and motivation, and the degree of understanding of the importance of glycemic control and self- management practices [22]. Moreover, differences may reflect variability in participants characteristics included in the study.

Longer duration of diabetes was reported to be associated with poor glycemic control, possibly because of progressive impairment of insulin secretion with time because of β-cell failure, which makes the response to diet alone or oral agents unlikely [6]. The present study also supported this fact. This finding is consistent with that reported by other studies; like the study done among middle-aged and older adults in USA, in addition to another study conducted in India [7,23].

Type 2 diabetes is a progressive disease in which β-cell function continually declines and eventually falls, ultimately recurring nearly all patients to be placed on insulin therapy. An increasing body of evidence suggests that early intensive glycemic control reduces long-term vascular outcomes and potentially may prolong β-cell life-span and function [24].

Related to the above finding, the present study demonstrated that patients with poor glycemic control were significantly more likely to be prescribed a combination of diet, oral hypoglycemic drugs and insulin, which may indicate that physicians are attempting multi-drug therapy to provide better disease control. Moreover, those patients who were on diet, oral hypoglycemic drugs and insulin had nearly seven times higher risk of having unachieved target glycemic control compared to those on diet and oral hypoglycemic drugs only. This association going with the results of other studies; including a study from Saudi Arabia, and another conducted on 822 diabetic patients in the primary care settings in USA [25,26]. This finding reflects the fact that with deterioration of diabetes over time, the need for higher doses or additional medications increases. Therefore, patients who were treated by combination therapy of diet, oral hypoglycemic drugs and insulin had more progressive disease which required more aggressive treatment to provide glycemic control.

An important factor linked to the success of any management strategy is the patient’s adherence to diet, medication and to follow up. This factor improves diabetic management and avoids long term complications [27,28].

Studies from KSA and Jordan demonstrated that non-adherence to appropriate diet and medication is associated with poor glycemic control [17,29]. Our study support this finding. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Also, a study from Ethiopia revealed that study participant’s adherence to insulin regimen, self-care and lifestyle didn’t show significant difference between good and poor glycemic control [30].

A good counseling and health education on regular basis can be vitally important in helping diabetic patients to understand the importance of adherence to diet and medication. However, tackling non-adherence is a multifactorial process and might include cost, health belief, dosing frequency and complexity, personality disorders and patient-provider relationships [31].

Contrary to adherence to diet and medication, the present study demonstrated that those who were adherent to follow up at the clinic had insignificantly higher level of poor glycemic control than those who were non-adherent. This unexpected result was in contrast with other studies from KSA and Jordan which found that poor adherent to regular follow up was significantly associated with poor control [17,29].

Some studies showed that the major reasons given for not complying with follow up at the clinic were forgetting, being out of town on day of appointment, financial problems and work/school commitments [32,33].

In standard care, Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG) is recommended for all newly diagnosed people with T2DM as an integral part of self-management education. Different studies and recommendations revealed that SMBG in T2DM is associated with HbA_1c reduction, improvement of glycemic variability, visualization of highly glycemic episodes and improvements in lifestyle and medication adherence [34,35]. The present study revealed that poor glycemic control was significantly more common among patients who were not practicing SMBG.

Moreover, those patients who were not practicing SMBG have nearly four times the risk of poor glycemic control compared to those who were practicing it. These results are consistent with what was found in other studies; including a study from USA on diabetic patients from 34 primary health care settings, and another study conducted in UK [36,37]. However, the study done in Iran among diabetic female patients found that controlled and uncontrolled patients did not differ significantly with respect to SMBG [38].

Comorbidities are very common among T2DM [39]. So, it is important to determine if comorbidity increases the difficulty to manage the disease and to achieve good glycemic control [40]. The present study revealed that neither the number nor the type of the comorbidities had significant association with the glycemic control. This is consistent with the results of other studies which found no association between the number of comorbidities and glycemic control; including the study in Dar Essalaam Tanzania, the study among urban African Americans with type 2 diabetes USA, and in a study at primary care center in Canada [22,39,41]. Moreover, another study at 20 primary health care centers in USA 2002 found that the presence of multiple chronic conditions was not a factor limiting the achievement of a good glycemic control, even after taking into account the severity of the coexistent diseases. The authors explained this by the fact that diabetic patients with elevated HbA_1c receive a closer attention in primary care encounters. Therefore, in the presence of multiple comorbid conditions, diabetic patients may receive better care [42]. On the other hand, other studies found an association between comorbidity and glycemic control; e.g. 2 studies from USA [43,44].

Hypertension and diabetes are commonly associated diseases as showed in the present study. The Skara Hypertension and Diabetes Project observed worse glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes alone compared with hypertensive diabetic patients in the primary health care outpatient clinics in Sweden [45]. However, the present study didn’t find significant association between the presence of hypertension and glycemic control as found in other studies; like the study in Dar Essalaam Tanzania, and a study done in India [22,46]. The present study also didn’t reveal relation between blood pressure control and glycemic control.

There was no association between obesity and glycemic control in the current study. This is consistent with the outcomes of 2 studies conducted in USA [47,48]. However, a study from Jordan found that overweight and obesity were risk factors for poor glycemic control [49].

On the other hand, the study done in Tanzania found that patients with normal BMI had double the risk of having poor glycemic control compared to overweight patients. The authors explained this by the fact that patients with poor control have lost weight due to disease process, while improved glycemic control is associated with weight gain. This explanation is consistent with the UKPDS findings indicating that intensive glycemic control caused 2 to 5 kg weight gain [6,22].

Dyslipidemia is highly prevalent among T2DM patients. However, intensive glycemic control in DM patients may lead to overall improvement of the lipid profile of the patients and hence reduction in the associated cardiovascular risk [50].

The present study showed that three quarters of the patients had dyslipidemia. It also revealed that unachieved target glycemic control was more common among patients with diagnosed dyslipidemia than those without dyslipidemia. Similarly, poor glycemic control was more common among patients with undesirable LDL and HDL levels. However, all the above-mentioned relations between dyslipidemia and glycemic control was not statistically significant. Similar findings were observed in other studies from Ethiopia [51,52].

On the other hand, the present study demonstrated significantly higher level of poor glycemic control and undesirable triglyceride level. Moreover, the logistic regression analysis revealed that those with undesirable triglyceride level had 1.65 higher risk of having poor glycemic control compared to those who had desirable triglycerides. This finding is supported by results of other studies; like a study done in India, and a study done in Ethiopia [46,51].

In general diabetes has the effect of lowering HDL and increasing LDL and triglyceride levels. Cholesterol accumulation on the other hand may contribute to β-cell dysfunction in T2DM. Poor glycemic control and increased serum lipids are considered as risk factors for micro-vascular and macro-vascular complications in T2DM. It is possible that both glycemic control and lipid concentration are markers for the quality of diabetes care [22].

Given the already increased risk of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, the association between glycemic control and lipid levels reinforces that cardiovascular health requires an optimization of dyslipidemia in addition to correction for the hyperglycemia. Good glycemic control could result in improvement in the lipid profile and the patients could be spared from the high cardiovascular risk [52].

The burden of diabetic complications is significant. In the United States, diabetes is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease, polyneuropathy, non-traumatic amputations, and in adults age 20-64, it is the most common cause of new blindness [53].

The present study revealed that near to one quarter of the patients had diabetic complications. This is much lower than what found in as a study where about 83% of type 2 diabetic patients had at least one diabetic complication [51]. This low number of complications in the present study may be explained by the fact that 69% of the patients had DM of less than 10 years in duration.

The complications of diabetes mellitus are far less common and less sever in people who have good glycemic control. The present study showed that there was a significant association between increasing in the number and of diabetic complications and glycemic control. Different other studies had demonstrated a significantly higher level of both micro-vascular and macro-vascular complications among those with poor glycemic control [51,54]. Different reasons for the poor control were postulated including a change in insulin sensitivity and clearance in the presence of renal impairment. In addition, various cardiovascular drugs such as diuretics and beta blockers may affect beta cell function adversely leading to more poor glycemic control [55].

It seems that glycemic control is multifactorial; some factors are modifiable, others are not. Improving glycemic control among type 2 diabetic patients is a challenge. Intensive effort should be offered by the healthcare system, health care providers, the patients and their families, to achieve better glycemic control and hence decrease diabetic complications and improve patient’s outcome.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded that about two thirds of patients with T2DM in Qatar had a poor glycemic control with HbA_1c level of > 7%. Comorbidities were highly prevalent among them and about 25% of them were developed one or more complications of diabetes. The duration of T2DM, the strategy used in management and the self-monitoring of blood glucose are critical factors in glycemic control.

Acknowledgement

We are extremely grateful to all patients who took part in this study and the data collectors for their support and guidance. The authors also thank Dr. Rajvir Singh for his invaluable statistical assistance.

Figure 1: Distribution of type 2 diabetic patients according to HbA1c level, Primary Health Care Centers, Qatar, 2014.

References

1. Oliveira AF, Valente JG, Leite Ida C, Schramm JM, Azevedo AS, et al. (2009) Global burden of disease attributable to diabetes mellitus in Brazil. Cad Saude Publica 25: 1234-1244.
2. Dong Y, Mo X, Hu Y, Qi X, Jiang F, et al. (2020) Epidemiology of COVID-19 Among Children in China. Pediatrics e20200702.
3. World Economic Forum (2010) Global Risks 2010: A Global Risk Network Report.
4. Bener A, Zirie M, Janahi IM, Al-Hamaq AO, Musallam M, et al. (2009) Prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes mellitus and its risk factors in a population-based study of Qatar. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 84: 99-106.
5. National Diabetes Fact Sheet (2007) General Information and National Estimates on Diabetes in the United States; 2007. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
6. (1998) Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 352: 837-853.
7. Chiu CJ, Wray LA (2010) Factors predicting glycemic control in middle-aged and older adults with type 2 diabetes. Prev Chronic Dis 7: A08.
8. S. Department of Health and Human Services (1996) Physical activity and health. Atlanta, GA, Washington, DC, USA.
9. Roglic G, Unwin N, Bennett PH, Mathers C, Tuomilehto J, et al. (2005) The burden of mortality attributable to diabetes: realistic estimates for the year 2000. Diabetes Care 28: 2130-2135.
10. American Diabetes Association (2006) Standards of medical care in diabetes--2006. Diabetes Care 29: S4-42.
11. Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee, Imran SA, Rabasa-Lhoret R, Ross S (2013) Target for glycemic control. Can J Diabetes 37: S31-S34.
12. Cushman WC, Evans GW, Byington RP, Goff DC Jr, Grimm RH Jr, et al. (2010) Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 362: 1575-1585.
13. Rydén L, Grant PJ, Anker SD, Berne C, Cosentino F, et al. (2013) ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD: the Task Force on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and developed in collaboration with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eur Heart J 34: 3035-3087.
14. American Diabetes Association (2010) Standards of medical care in diabetes--2010. Diabetes Care 33: S11-S61.
15. (2000) Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 894: 1-253.
16. Ali MK, McKeever Bullard K, Imperatore G, Barker L, Gregg EW (2012) Characteristics associated with poor glycemic control among adults with self-reported diagnosed diabetes--National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2007-2010. MMWR Suppl 61: 32-37.
17. Khattab M, Khader YS, Al-Khawaldeh A, Ajlouni K (2010) Factors associated with poor glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes. Journal of diabetes and its complications. J Diabetes Complications 24: 84-89.
18. Habib SS, Aslam M (2003) Risk factors, knowledge and health status in diabetic patients. Saudi Med J 24: 1219-1224.
19. Al-Sultan FA, Najah AZ (2005) Clinical epidemiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Kuwait. Kuwait Medical Journal 37: 98-104.
20. Corporation PHC (2011) PHC physician guidelines for non-communicable diseases.
21. Harrabi I, Harbi F, Ghamdi S (2014) Predictors of Glycemic Control among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Najran Armed Forces Hospital: A Pilot Study. Journal of Diabetes Mellitus 4: 141-147.
22. Kamuhabwa AR, Charles E (2014) Predictors of poor glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients attending public hospitals in Dar es Salaam. Drug Healthc Patient Saf 6: 155-165.
23. Verma M, Paneri S, Badi P, Raman PG (2006) Effect of increasing duration of diabetes mellitus type 2 on glycated hemoglobin and insulin sensitivity. Indian J Clin Biochem 21: 142-146.
24. Niswender K (2009) Early and aggressive initiation of insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes: What is the evidence? Clinical Diabetes 27: 60-68.
25. Al-Nuaim AR, Mirdad S, Al-Rubeaan K, Al-Mazrou Y, Al-Attas O, et al. (1998) Pattern and factors associated with glycemic control of Saudi diabetic patients. Ann Saudi Med 18: 109-112.
26. Spann SJ, Nutting PA, Galliher JM, Peterson KA, Pavlik VN, et al. (2006) Management of type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting: a practice-based research network study. Ann Fam Med 4: 23-31.
27. Ahmad NS, Islahudin F, Paraidathathu T (2014) Factors associated with good glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Invest 5: 563-569.
28. Pladevall M, Williams LK, Potts LA, Divine G, Xi H, et al. (2004) Clinical outcomes and adherence to medications measured by claims data in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 27: 2800-2805.
29. Khan AR, Al-Abdul Lateef ZN, Al Aithan MA, Bu-Khamseen MA, Al Ibrahim I, et al. (2012) Factors contributing to non-compliance among diabetics attending primary health centers in the Al Hasa district of Saudi Arabia. J Family Community Med 19: 26-32.
30. Angamo MT, Melese BH, Ayen WY (2013) Determinants of glycemic control among insulin treated diabetic patients in Southwest Ethiopia: hospital based cross sectional study. PLoS One 8: e61759.
31. Leichter SB (2005) Making Outpatient Care of Diabetes More Efficient: Analyzing Noncompliance. Clinical Diabetes 23: 187-190.
32. Griffin SJ (1998) Lost to follow-up: the problem of defaulters from diabetes clinics. Diabet Med 15: S14-S24.
33. Ngwenya BT, van Zyl DG, Webb EM (2009) Factors influencing non-attendance of clinic appointments in diabetic patients at a Gauteng hospital in 2007/2008. Journal of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes of South Africa 14: 106-110.
34. Schnell O, Alawi H, Battelino T, Ceriello A, Diem P, et al. (2009) Consensus statement on self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes: A European perspective. Diabetes, Stoffwechsel und Herz 18: 285-289.
35. Peel E, Parry O, Douglas M, Lawton J (2004) Blood glucose self-monitoring in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study of patients' perspectives. Br J Gen Pract 54: 183-188.
36. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Schikman CH, Hinnen DA, Parkin CG, et al. (2011) Structured self-monitoring of blood glucose significantly reduces A1C levels in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes: results from the Structured Testing Program study. Diabetes Care 34: 262-267.
37. Franciosi M, Lucisano G, Pellegrini F, Cantarello A, Consoli A, et al. (2011) ROSES: role of self-monitoring of blood glucose and intensive education in patients with Type 2 diabetes not receiving insulin. A pilot randomized clinical trial. Diabet Med 28: 789-796.
38. Ghazanfari Z, Niknami S, Ghofranipour F, Larijani B, Agha-Alinejad H, et al. (2010) Determinants of glycemic control in female diabetic patients: a study from Iran. Lipids Health Dis 9: 83.
39. Hudon C, Fortin M, Dubois M-F, Almirall J (2008) Comorbidity and glycemia control among patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 1: 33-37.
40. Egede LE (2005) Effect of comorbid chronic diseases on prevalence and odds of depression in adults with diabetes. Psychosom Med 67: 46-51.
41. El-Kebbi IM, Cook CB, Ziemer DC, Miller CD, Gallina DL, et al. (2003) Association of younger age with poor glycemic control and obesity in urban african americans with type 2 diabetes. Arch Intern Med 163: 69-75.
42. Parchman ML, Pugh JA, Romero RL, Bowers KW (2007) Competing demands or clinical inertia: the case of elevated glycosylated hemoglobin. Ann Fam Med 5: 196-201.
43. Suh DC, Kim CM, Choi IS, Plauschinat CA (2008) Comorbid conditions and glycemic control in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, 1988 to 1994 to 1999 to 2004. J Am Geriatr Soc 56: 484-492.
44. Weiner M, Long J (2004) Cross-sectional versus longitudinal performance assessments in the management of diabetes. Med Care 42: 1134-1139.
45. Bøg-Hansen E, Lindblad U, Bengtsson K, Ranstam J, Melander A, et al. (1998) Risk factor clustering in patients with hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The Skaraborg Hypertension Project. J Intern Med 243: 223-232.
46. Gopinath B, Prasad SSM, Jayarama N, Prabhakara K (2013) Study of factors associated with poor glycemic control in Type -2 Diabetic patients. GJMEDPH 2: 1-5.
47. Harris MI, Eastman RC, Cowie CC, Flegal KM, Eberhardt MS (1999) Racial and ethnic differences in glycemic control of adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 22: 403-408.
48. Blaum CS, Velez L, Hiss RG, Halter JB (1997) Characteristics related to poor glycemic control in NIDDM patients in community practice. Diabetes Care 20: 7-11.
49. Al-Akour NA, Khader YS, Alaoui AM (2011) Glycemic Control and Its Determinants among Patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Attending a Teaching Hospital. J Diabetes Metab 2:129.
50. Chahil TJ, Ginsberg HN (2006) Diabetic dyslipidemia. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 35: 491-510.
51. Mullugeta Y, Chawla R, Kebede T, Worku Y (2012) Dyslipidemia associated with poor glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus and the protective effect of metformin supplementation. Indian J Clin Biochem 27: 363-369.
52. Siraj ES, Seyoum B, Saenz C, Abdulkadir J (2006) Lipid and lipoprotein profiles in Ethiopian patients with diabetes mellitus. Metabolism 55: 706-710.
53. Group NDD (1995) Diabetes in America: US Department of Health and Human Services.
54. Sanal TS, Nair NS, Adhikari P (2011) Factors associated with poor control of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of diabetology 3: 1-10.
55. Fonseca VA (2009) Defining and characterizing the progression of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 32: S151-S156.