12 / 44
RESEARCH ARTICLE
SA JOURNAL OF DIABETES & VASCULAR DISEASE
10
VOLUME 15 NUMBER 1 • JULY 2018
Table 5 shows the correlation of glycaemic control and lifestyle
variables with cardiovascular risk. Obesity, level of education and
glycaemic control showed statistically significant relationships with
cardiovascular risk.
Table 6 shows the percentage of DM patients who achieved
optimal treatment goals for modifiable cardiovascular risk factors.
Most of the study population with DM did not attain optimal
treatment goals for the modifiable cardiovascular risk factors.
Table 3.
Clinical and laboratory parameters of the study participants
Parameters
Subjects
with type 2
diabetes
n
= 40 (%)
Subjects with
the metabolic
syndrome
n
= 40 (%)
Healthy
controls
n
= 40 (%)
p
-value
Age (years)
50.52 ± 8.70 49.65 ± 7.74 49.82 ± 8.9 0.832
SBP (mmHg) 130.22 ± 19.36 131.92 ± 17.31 126.00 ± 17.30 0.922
DBP (mmHg) 78.27 ± 12.03 82.77 ± 11.30 77.67 ± 17.33 0.130
BMI (kg/m
2
)
29.43 ± 4.39 30.73 ± 4.43 29.03 ± 5.12 0.073
WC (cm)
98.26 ± 13.43 99.75 ± 9.04 95.22 ± 12.80 0.220
Waist/hip
ratio
0.93 ± 0.13 0.88 ± 0.05 0.88 ± 0.06 0.051
HbA
1c
(%)
8.56 ± 4.07a 4.79 ± 1.04 4.55 ± 1.76 < 0.0001*
HDL-C
(mmol/l)
0.90 ± 0.45a 1.25 ± 0.12a 1.83 ± 0.62a < 0.0001*
TG (mmol/l)
1.09 ± 0.33 1.90 ± 0.13a 1.03 ± 0.52 < 0.0001*
TC (mmol/l)
4.16 ± 1.07 5.03 ± 0.44a 4.53 ± 0.92 < 0.0001*
LDL-C
(mmol/l)
2.78 ± 1.16 2.91 ± 0.42a 2.23 ± 1.22 0.045*
CVD risk (%) 20.41 ± 12.98a 10.00 ± 6.35 6.79 ± 7.82 < 0.0001*
SBP: systolic blood pressure, DBP: diastolic blood pressure, BMI: body mass
index, WC: waist circumference, HbA
1c:
glycated haemoglobin, HDL-C: high-
density lipoprotein cholesterol, TG: triglycerides, TC: total cholesterol, LDL-C:
low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, CVD: cardiovascular disease.
*Statistically significant,
a
Post hoc
analysis showing the group(s) contributing
to the observed differences.
Table 4.
Comparison of cardiovascular disease risk categories among
subjects with type 2 diabetes, the metabolic syndrome and healthy
controls
CVD risk
category
Subjects
with type 2
diabetes
n
= 40 (%)
Subjects
with the
metabolic
syndrome
n
= 40 (%)
Healthy
controls
n
= 40 (%)
p
-value
Low risk (< 10%)
11 (27.5)
22 (55)
29 (72.5)
< 0.0001*
Medium risk
(10–20%)
8 (20)
15 (37.5) 10 (25)
High risk (> 20%)
21 (52.5)
3 (7.5)
1 (2.5)
*Statistically significant
Table 5.
Correlation of glycaemic control and lifestyle variables with
CVD risk
Variable
Correlation coefficient
p
-value
Smoking status
0.055
0.548
Alcohol consumption 0.079
0.389
Exercise
0.072
0.432
Level of education
–0.271
0.003*
Body mass index
0.203
0.026*
Waist circumference
0.252
0.006*
HbA
1c
0.402
< 0.001*
HbA
1c
: glycated haemoglobin. *Statistically significant.
Table 6.
Percentage of type 2 diabetes subjectswho achieved optimal
treatment goals for modifiable cardiovascular risk factors
Treatment goals for type 2 DM
22
Percent
Blood pressure < 130/80 mmHg
50
HbA
1c
< 7%
52.5
HDL-C > 1.56 mmol/l
16
LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/l
40
TC < 5.2 mmol/l
80
TG < 1.7 mmol/l
95
Low WC (cm)
37.5
Low WC = waist circumference < 102 cm in men or < 88 cm in women.
HbA
1c
: glycated haemoglobin, HDL-C: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol,
LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, TC: total cholesterol, TG:
triglycerides.
Statistical analysis
The data were analysed using the IBM SPSS version 20.0 package.
The chi-squared test was employed to test the differences in the
categorical variables and ANOVA was used to test the differences
in the mean values for the continuous variables. Spearman’s
correlation analysis was employed to determine the association
between variables. Statistical significance was set at
p
< 0.05.
Results
Forty individuals with type 2 diabetes, 40 with the metabolic
syndrome, and 40 healthy controls participated in the study.
Each group consisted of 13 men and 27 women. Table 1 shows
the gender and age distribution of the study participants. The
participants did not differ statistically in their age and gender
distribution. Table 2 shows the socio-demographic characteristics
of study participants. The participants did not differ statistically in
their socio-demographic characteristics.
Table 3 shows the clinical and laboratory parameters of the
study participants. The differences between the groups are seen in
the lipid profile parameters, HbA
1c
levels and in the absolute values
of cardiovascular risk. The group with the metabolic syndrome had
higher TG, TC and LDL-C levels than both the control group and
the DM group on treatment.
Table 4 shows a comparison of cardiovascular disease risk
categories among subjects with type 2 diabetes, those with the
metabolic syndrome and the healthy controls. Over 50% of the
diabetic group were in the high-risk category, compared to 7.5 and
2.5% in the metabolic syndrome and control groups, respectively.