Key result
Comorbid heart failure shows no difference in glycemic control rates among T2D patients.
Why the study?
Comorbid heart failure introduces substantial self-care complexities in adults with type 2 diabetes, motivating an evaluation of the demographic, psychosocial, and clinical factors associated with glycemic control in patients with and without comorbid HF.
Cross-Sectional (n=210)
No
In Ethiopian adults with Type 2 diabetes, overall glycemic control is very low (~10%) regardless of heart failure status, with diabetes self-efficacy and daily medication count driving glycemic success in patients with comorbid heart failure, whereas social support drives success in those without heart failure.
INTRODUCTION: Attaining good glycemic control (GC) in patients with Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is critical, yet the presence of comorbidities like heart failure (HF) presents overwhelming self-care complexities. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the demographic, psychosocial, and clinical factors associated with glycemic control among T2D adults with and without comorbid HF. DESIGN: A comparative cross-sectional study. METHODS: A total of 210 adult T2D patients (105 with comorbid HF, 105 without comorbid HF) in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Referral Hospital (TASRH), the largest tertiary healthcare setting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, were enrolled. Data gathered included demographic traits, clinical parameters including the outcome variable HbA1c (categorized as "good glycemic control" for HbA1c < 7% and "poor glycemic control" for HbA1c ≥ 7%), and standardized psychosocial scales (SDSCA, PDSMS, DKT2, PHQ-9, and ESSI). Bivariate analysis (Chi-square and biserial correlation) and Enter method logistic regression analysis were performed. RESULT: Across both groups, good GC (HbA1c < 7%) was alarmingly low, only 10.43% in the non-HF and 9.52% in the HF comorbid group (p = 0.818). In the non-HF group, the multivariate model revealed that only a higher social support (ESSI) score significantly predicted a higher likelihood of good GC (AOR = 1.518, 95% CI: 1.002, 2.302, p = 0.049). Conversely, for those with comorbid HF, a higher diabetes self-efficacy (PDSMS) score (AOR = 1.569, 95% CI: 1.045, 2.355, p = 0.030) and taking a higher number of daily medications (AOR = 2.502, 95% CI: 1.050, 5.962, p = 0.038) significantly predicted good GC. CONCLUSION: This study highlights a critical gap in glycemic control regardless of HF status. However, the actionable drivers of glycemic success diverge fundamentally: social support systems are vital for GC success in uncomplicated T2D, whereas promoting self-efficacy and total count of daily medications dictates success in the face of complex HF comorbidity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aga et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 2 diabetes with and without comorbid heart failure (n=210). Comorbid heart failure vs. Type 2 diabetes without comorbid heart failure was evaluated on Good glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%) (p=0.818). Comorbid heart failure in T2D showed similarly low good glycemic control vs non-HF (9.52% vs 10.43%, p=0.818), predicted by self-efficacy (AOR 1.569, p=0.030) and medication count (AOR 2.502, p=0.038).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: