Electronic Theses and Dissertations (Masters)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/10539/37955

Browse

Browsing Electronic Theses and Dissertations (Masters) by Keyword "CCMDD programme"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Determinants of sub-optimal glycaemic control among patients enrolled in a medicine dispensing programme in Kwazulu-Natal: A cohort study, 2018 – 2021
    (University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2023) Johnston, Leigh Clare
    Background: In South Africa, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing public health problem, thus, by 2030, 50% of T2DM patients, receiving treatment, must achieve optimal glycaemic control (haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤7%). The CCMDD (Central Chronic Medicines Dispensing and Distribution) programme allows glycaemically-stable patients to collect their medication from community-based pick-up points. While the CCMDD is a large public health programme, there is a paucity in stakeholder’s knowledge of T2DM patients glycaemic control over time. We determined glycaemic control for CCMDD-enrolled T2DM patients in eThekwini, South Africa from 2018-2021, as well as the rate and predictors of becoming sub-optimally controlled. Methods: We performed a cohort study, linking HbA1c data from the National Health Laboratory Service to CCMDD-enrolled patients in eThekwini, South Africa from 2018–2021. We included patients optimally controlled at their baseline HbA1c, and having ≥1 repeat test available. We used Kaplan Meier analysis to assess survival rates and Cox regression to determine associations between time to sub-optimal control (HbA1c > 7%) and several factors. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR), 95% confidence interval (95% CI), and p-values are reported. Results: Of 41145 T2DM patients enrolled in the CCMDD, 7960 (19%) had an available HbA1c result over the study period. A quarter of patients (2147/7960; 27%) were optimally controlled at their baseline HbA1c. Of those controlled at baseline, 695 (32%) patients had a repeat test available, with 35% (242/695) changing their status to sub-optimal control. Patients prescribed dual-therapy had a higher risk of sub-optimal glycaemic control (aHR: 1.503; 95% CI: 1.16–1.95; p-value=0.002) compared to those on monotherapy. HbA1c testing frequency per national guidelines (aHR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24–0.91; p-value=0.024) was associated with a lower hazard of sub-optimal glycaemic control. Conclusions: HbA1c monitoring, in line with testing frequency guidelines, is needed to flag sub- optimally controlled patients who become ineligible for CCMDD enrolment. Patients receiving dual-therapy may require special consideration. Addressing these shortfalls can assist planning and implementation to achieve 2030 targets.