Page 195 - EJMO-9-3
P. 195

Eurasian Journal of
            Medicine and Oncology                                                  Medication therapy based on HbA1c



              Data were collected using standardized questionnaires   of Cardiology (decision no. ПЗ-202007041). All patients
            administered to the patients during their hospital visits.   provided informed consent to participate in the study and
            The  questionnaires  included  sections  on  demographic   received a full explanation of the study’s objectives and
            information, medical history, clinical parameters, and   methods. Confidentiality of data and the right to withdraw
            medication usage. It also included prescriptions issued   from the study were guaranteed to all participants. The
            within the hospital setting. Clinical, functional, and   study was conducted in accordance with the principles of
            instrumental parameters, including LVEF and other   the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013) and ethical
            metabolic indicators, were assessed.               guidelines for clinical research.
            2.2. Outcome measurement                           3. Results

            We employed descriptive data analysis to examine   The  study included 130  patients diagnosed with
            changes in clinical characteristics over time. Changes were   T2DM  and  IHD.  Table  1  presents  the  demographic
            calculated by subtracting baseline (first observation) values   and clinical  characteristics of the cohort. A  total of
            from follow-up (second observation) values.        75 patients achieved HbA1c levels ≤8% while 55 patients
              The primary outcome measure was the achievement   did not (≥8%).
            of target HbA1c levels (≤8%) in patients with T2DM   3.1. Glycemic control and medication therapy
            and IHD. This target level was selected according to
            the severity of IHD in patients and in compliance with   The study found significant differences in glycemic control
            Uzbekistan’s and global treatment standards. Given that   and medication therapy between patients who achieved
            the patient population consisted primarily of older adults   target HbA1c levels (≤8%) and those who did not (≥8%).
            with complex/intermediate health, many of whom have   The average age of participants with HbA1c levels ≤8%
            pacemakers or are at risk of hypoglycemia, a target HbA1c   was significantly higher than those with HbA1c levels ≥8%
            below 8% was considered clinically appropriate. Moreover,   (67.19 ± 9.73 years versus 63.48 ± 9.23 years, t = 4.879,
            as the study was conducted in a cardiological hospital, all   p=0.027). In addition, a higher frequency of women was
            admitted patients had IHD as their primary diagnosis, with   present in the HbA1c level ≥8% group compared to the
            T2DM as a comorbidity. Therefore, the target HbA1c levels   HbA1c level ≤8% group during the second observation
            used were not the same as those of a healthy population.  (62.5% vs. 48.6%, t = 8.186, p=0.004).

              Secondary outcome measures included comparisons    The duration of T2DM was higher among patients
            of demographic characteristics, clinical parameters, and   in the HbA1c level ≥8% group (11.12 ± 4.55  years)
            medication usage between patients who achieved target   compared to the patients in the HbA1c level ≤8% group
            HbA1c levels and those who did not. We also compared   (7.04  ±  4.93  years,  t  =  26.010,  p=0.000).  Similarly,  the
            different medication types and outcomes using statistical   duration of IHD was longer in the HbA1c level ≥8% group
            analysis.  We  randomly  permuted  and  split  our  dataset   (8.38 ± 3.70  years) compared to the HbA1c level ≤8%
            into training (70%) and test (30%) sets to construct linear   group (6.93 ± 3.43 years, t = 5.007, p=0.025).
            regression and logistic regression models.           Table 2 shows the dosages of medications prescribed
            2.3. Statistical analysis                          to patients. The duration of treatment before the second
                                                               observation was 9.94±5.71 months (interquartile
            Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the   range = 6.00 – 12.00; minimum = 2.0, maximum = 31.0).
            Social Sciences version  23.0.  Continuous  variables  were
            presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). We applied   Medication  therapy  varied  significantly  between  the
            t-tests and the Kruskal–Wallis test to compare variables.   two groups. Metformin was prescribed to 69.6% of patients
            Categorical variables were presented as percentages and   with an HbA1c level ≥8%, compared to 35.1% of patients
            compared using Chi-squared tests. For non-parametric   with an HbA1c level ≤8% (t = 56.324, p=0.000). Insulin
            analysis of variance, we used Python 3.7 SciPy library   therapy was also more common in the HbA1c level ≥8%
            (v1.15). Statistical significance was accepted at p<0.05. In   group (41.1% vs. 9.5%, t = 41.289, p=0.000). Table 3 presents
            addition, the multinomial logistic regression model from   the distribution of antidiabetic medication prescriptions
            the Statsmodels library (v.0.15) was used.         across patient groups, expressed as percentages.
                                                                 Empagliflozin,  a  medication  known  for  its
            2.4. Ethical considerations                        cardiovascular benefits, was prescribed for all 130 patients
            The study was approved by the ethics committee of the   in the study. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors
            Republican Specialized Scientific-Practical Medical Center   were more frequently prescribed to patients with an HbA1c



            Volume 9 Issue 3 (2025)                        187                         doi: 10.36922/EJMO025160133
   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200