Edited by: Åke Sjöholm, Gävle Hospital, Sweden
Reviewed by: Benli Su, Second Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China
Shaminul Shakib, University of Louisville, United States
*Correspondence: Víctor Hugo Vázquez Martínez,
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
‡ORCID: Vı́ctor Hugo Vázquez Martı́nez,
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Telephone calls were used for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients during the Covid-19 pandemic. The study’s objective was to determine the factors that favor glycemic control in patients with T2DM using telephone calls in the Mexico’s northern border.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted with T2DM patients from the Family Medicine Unit 33 in Reynosa, Tamaulipas, from June 2021 to June 2022. The evaluation of glycemic control involved measuring glycated hemoglobin at the beginning and end of telephone follow-up. Clinical, demographic, social, and laboratory factors were analyzed using univariate and bivariate statistical methods to compare initial and final glycemic control, finally, two logistic regression models were estimated considering glycemic control as a binary variable.
A total of 287 participants were followed up, comprising 122 men and 165 women, where 71.78% received nine or more phone calls. Initially, 49.13% had glycemic control, but by the end of the follow-up, it increased by 7%. Females show an Odds Ratio (OR) of 0.475 (95% CI 0.269-0.838), high-density lipid levels with an OR = 0.982 (p=0.078), and 11 follow-up telephone calls with an OR = 0.403 (95% CI 0.165-0.985), which represented factors contributing to glycemic control. Poor glycemic control is more likely in individuals with a high cardiovascular risk, with an OR of 2.193 (p=0.085).
Cell phone calls can effectively control glycemia in T2DM patients. Therefore, they can be used as a substitute for in-person medical care.
香京julia种子在线播放
Telemedicine is a valuable tool for delivering preventive medical care, educational services, diagnoses, or treatments when access to health services is limited by distance or other factors. In Mexico, the healthcare system was restructured during the Covid-19 pandemic to prioritize patients with Covid-19. Additionally, telemedicine programs were implemented to monitor patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (
Health institutions faced a challenge providing continuous telemedicine services, particularly in Mexico’s northern border, where T2DM rates range from 12.77-18.3%. On Mexico’s northern border, the prevalence and incidence of diabetes are high due to a significant percentage of overweight and obesity (35.7% and 41.6%, respectively), inadequate eating habits, unhealthy behaviors, and a prevalence of high blood pressure reaching up to 50% (
According to recent reports, telemedicine has been successful in enhancing medication adjustment and treating comorbidities such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, and heart and kidney diseases. Studies have shown that glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c%) levels can be reduced by 0.38% to 0.5% in 25% of patients. This leads to a decrease in blood pressure by 3 mmHg, improved fasting glucose levels, and a better lipid serum profile (
While efforts are being made to address T2DM on the northern border of Mexico (
A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Family Medicine Unit 33 of the Mexican Institute of Social Security in Reynosa, Tamaulipas, from June 2021 through June 2022.
The study involved 287 participants diagnosed with T2DM at least six months before the study and who had attended the Family Medicine Unit for six consecutive months to ensure medical follow-up. Among them, 165 were female, and 122 were men. The participants were required to satisfy specific criteria to be included in the study. These criteria included having a diagnosis of T2DM, being beneficiaries at Family Medicine Unit 33, being at least 18 years old, possessing a mobile phone, and consenting to participate in the study. The research protocol was approved by the Research Committee 2804 and Research Ethics Committee 28048 with registration number R-2023-2804-002. The participant’s data from the digital medical record was anonymized using a dissociation procedure, preventing any association with personal information or participant identification.
The exclusion criteria were patients with speech disabilities, cognitive disabilities due to dementia, and patients undergoing steroid treatment. Furthermore, participants without complete digital clinical data or full laboratory results were excluded.
During the initial interview, the participants were met in person, the follow-up program was explained to them, and took their contact details to schedule monthly phone calls. If three calls were attempted in one day without a response, it would be considered an unanswered inquiry. Laboratory examinations, including HbA1c%, were performed initially and at the end of follow-up of each participant.
Information regarding the participants who met the inclusion criteria was obtained from the Family Medicine Information System via the digital medical record, including sociodemographic, clinical, and laboratory data. The data was collected through a structured questionnaire that covered various variables, including age, gender, education, occupation, marital status, weight, height, blood pressure, body mass index, HbA1c%, fasting serum glucose, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, creatinine, and smoking habits.
In addition, the study evaluated cardiovascular risk using the Framingham Cardiovascular Risk Scale, which classified the risk as low, moderate, or high (
Laboratory examinations were performed in the clinical laboratory of the Medical Unit by an automated device, Atellica® Solutions from Siemens (Global Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany).
To initiate our research, we conducted an exploratory analysis of global and segmented data, examining the initial and final percentage measurement of HbA1c%. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages in
Sociodemographic characteristics of participants.
Total | Glycemic control by first HbA1c% | Glycemic control by last HbA1c% | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Yes | No | |||||||
n | % | n1 | % | n0 | % | n1 | % | n0 | % | |
Total | 287 | 100.00% | 141 | 49.13% | 146 | 50.87% | 163 | 56.79% | 124 | 43.21% |
Sex | ||||||||||
Male | 122 | 42.51 | 66 | 46.81 | 56 | 38.36 | 80 | 49.08 | 42 | 33.87 |
Female | 165 | 57.49 | 75 | 53.19 | 90 | 61.64 | 83 | 50.92 | 82 | 66.13 |
Age (years) | ||||||||||
< 30 | 25 | 8.71 | 12 | 8.51 | 13 | 8.90 | 15 | 9.20 | 10 | 8.06 |
[30, 39] | 73 | 25.44 | 36 | 25.53 | 37 | 25.34 | 39 | 23.93 | 34 | 27.42 |
[40, 49] | 81 | 28.22 | 40 | 28.37 | 41 | 28.08 | 45 | 27.61 | 36 | 29.03 |
[50, 59] | 60 | 20.91 | 28 | 19.86 | 32 | 21.92 | 34 | 20.86 | 26 | 20.97 |
≥ 60 | 48 | 16.72 | 25 | 17.73 | 23 | 15.75 | 30 | 18.40 | 18 | 14.52 |
Education | ||||||||||
Elementary | 28 | 9.76 | 15 | 10.64 | 13 | 8.90 | 19 | 11.66 | 9 | 7.26 |
Junior high school | 141 | 49.13 | 63 | 44.68 | 78 | 53.42 | 76 | 46.63 | 65 | 52.42 |
Senior high school | 76 | 26.48 | 40 | 28.37 | 36 | 24.66 | 44 | 26.99 | 32 | 25.81 |
Professional | 42 | 14.63 | 23 | 16.31 | 19 | 13.01 | 24 | 14.72 | 18 | 14.52 |
Occupation | ||||||||||
Unemployed | 7 | 2.44 | 3 | 2.13 | 4 | 2.74 | 4 | 2.45 | 3 | 2.42 |
Employee | 217 | 75.61 | 110 | 78.01 | 107 | 73.29 | 125 | 76.69 | 92 | 74.19 |
Homemaker | 43 | 14.98 | 20 | 14.18 | 23 | 15.75 | 23 | 14.11 | 20 | 16.13 |
Retired | 20 | 6.97 | 8 | 5.67 | 12 | 8.22 | 11 | 6.75 | 9 | 7.26 |
Marital status | ||||||||||
Married | 124 | 43.21 | 59 | 41.84 | 65 | 44.52 | 68 | 41.72 | 56 | 45.16 |
Divorced | 43 | 14.98 | 23 | 16.31 | 20 | 13.70 | 24 | 14.72 | 19 | 15.32 |
Separated | 15 | 5.23 | 7 | 4.96 | 8 | 5.48 | 9 | 5.52 | 6 | 4.84 |
Cohabitation | 72 | 25.09 | 37 | 26.24 | 35 | 23.97 | 44 | 26.99 | 28 | 22.58 |
Widowed | 33 | 11.50 | 15 | 10.64 | 18 | 12.33 | 18 | 11.04 | 15 | 12.10 |
Clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and glycemic control of participants.
Total | Glycemic control by first HbA1c% | Glycemic control by last HbA1c% | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Yes | No | |||||||
n | % | n1 | % | n0 | % | n1 | % | n0 | % | |
Total | 287 | 100.00% | 141 | 49.13% | 146 | 50.87% | 163 | 56.79% | 124 | 43.21% |
Nutrition | ||||||||||
Underweight | 13 | 4.53 | 5 | 3.55 | 8 | 5.48 | 7 | 4.29 | 6 | 4.84 |
Normal weight | 52 | 18.12 | 29 | 20.57 | 23 | 15.75 | 31 | 19.02 | 21 | 16.94 |
Overweight | 108 | 37.63 | 54 | 38.30 | 54 | 36.99 | 64 | 39.26 | 44 | 35.48 |
Obesity I | 84 | 29.27 | 38 | 26.95 | 46 | 31.51 | 45 | 27.61 | 39 | 31.45 |
Obesity II | 29 | 10.10 | 14 | 9.93 | 15 | 10.27 | 15 | 9.20 | 14 | 11.29 |
Obesity III | 1 | 0.35 | 1 | 0.71 | . | 0.00 | 1 | 0.61 | . | 0.00 |
Hypertension | ||||||||||
No | 61 | 21.25 | 30 | 21.28 | 31 | 21.23 | 35 | 21.47 | 26 | 20.97 |
Yes | 226 | 78.75 | 111 | 78.72 | 115 | 78.77 | 128 | 78.53 | 98 | 79.03 |
COVID-19 | ||||||||||
No | 99 | 34.49 | 51 | 36.17 | 48 | 32.88 | 55 | 33.74 | 44 | 35.48 |
Yes | 188 | 65.51 | 90 | 63.83 | 98 | 67.12 | 108 | 66.26 | 80 | 64.52 |
Smoke | ||||||||||
No | 197 | 68.64 | 98 | 69.50 | 99 | 67.81 | 111 | 68.10 | 86 | 69.35 |
Yes | 90 | 31.36 | 43 | 30.50 | 47 | 32.19 | 52 | 31.90 | 38 | 30.65 |
Cardiovascular risk | ||||||||||
Low | 115 | 40.07 | 56 | 39.72 | 59 | 40.41 | 61 | 37.42 | 54 | 43.55 |
Medium | 84 | 29.27 | 40 | 28.37 | 44 | 30.14 | 47 | 28.83 | 37 | 29.84 |
High | 88 | 30.66 | 45 | 31.91 | 43 | 29.45 | 55 | 33.74 | 33 | 26.61 |
Telemedicine | ||||||||||
Six calls | 3 | 1.05 | – | – | 3 | 1.05 | 2 | 0.70 | 1 | 0.35 |
Seven calls | 18 | 6.27 | 9 | 3.14 | 9 | 3.14 | 9 | 3.14 | 9 | 3.14 |
Eight calls | 60 | 20.91 | 35 | 12.20 | 25 | 8.71 | 40 | 13.94 | 20 | 6.97 |
Nine calls | 72 | 25.09 | 33 | 11.50 | 39 | 13.59 | 41 | 14.29 | 31 | 10.80 |
Ten calls | 76 | 26.48 | 40 | 13.94 | 36 | 12.54 | 43 | 14.98 | 33 | 11.50 |
Eleven calls | 47 | 16.38 | 19 | 6.62 | 28 | 9.76 | 21 | 7.32 | 26 | 9.06 |
Twelve calls | 11 | 3.83 | 5 | 1.74 | 6 | 2.09 | 7 | 2.44 | 4 | 1.39 |
Univariate analysis using median and interquartile range of demographic and clinical characteristics.
Total (n=287) | Metabolic control by first HbA1c% | Metabolic control by last HbA1c% | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes (n1 = 141) | No (n0 = 146) | Yes (n1 = 163) | No (n0 = 124) | |||||||
Median | (q1 - q3) | Median | (q1 - q3) | Median | (q1 - q3) | Median | (q1 - q3) | Median | (q1 - q3) | |
First HbA1c% | 6.7 | (5.8 - 8) | 5.8 | (5.3 - 6) | 8 | (7.3 - 8.7) | 5.9 | (5.4 - 6.1) | 8.2 | (7.6 - 8.9) |
Last HbA1c% | 6.5 | (5.6 - 7.5) | 5.5 | (5.2 - 6) | 7.5 | (6.8 - 8) | 5.9 | (5.3 - 6.2) | 7.5 | (7 – 8) |
Age | 45 | (38 – 56) | 45 | (38 – 55) | 46 | (38 – 56) | 46 | (38 – 56) | 45 | (38 – 56) |
BMI | 28.3 | (25.78 - 31.91) | 28.3 | (25.78 - 31.62) | 28.4 | (25.78 - 32.05) | 28.3 | (25.78 - 31.89) | 28.6 | (25.78 - 31.98) |
Systolic Blood Pressure | 138 | (128 – 145) | 138 | (128 – 145) | 136 | (128 – 143) | 138 | (126 – 145) | 136 | (128 – 143) |
Diastolic Blood Pressure | 87 | (85 – 90) | 87 | (85 – 90) | 87 | (86 – 90) | 87 | (85 – 90) | 87 | (86 – 90) |
Mean Blood Pressure | 103.3 | (98.33 - 107.33) | 103.3 | (98.33 - 109.66) | 103.2 | (98.33 - 107.33) | 103.3 | (98.33 - 108.67) | 103.2 | (98.83 - 107.33) |
Cardiovascular risk | 13.7 | (7.3 - 21.5) | 13.7 | (7.3 - 21.5) | 13.7 | (7.3 - 21.5) | 15.9 | (7.3 - 24.8) | 12.7 | (7.3 - 21.5) |
Serum glucose | 147 | (129 – 176) | 129 | (112 – 147) | 160 | (140 – 190) | 134 | (118 – 156) | 170.5 | (140 – 190) |
Total cholesterol | 182 | (150 – 305) | 184 | (150 – 295) | 181 | (146 - 309) | 185 | (150 - 302) | 180 | (145 - 306.5) |
LDL cholesterol | 165 | (75 - 175) | 165 | (75 - 175) | 131.5 | (70 - 170) | 165 | (75 - 175) | 165 | (70 - 175) |
HDL cholesterol | 40 | (30 - 55) | 40 | (30 - 50) | 45 | (34 - 55) | 38 | (30 - 50) | 45 | (35 - 55) |
Triglycerides | 180 | (110 - 230) | 185 | (112 - 230) | 177.5 | (109 - 230) | 180 | (109 - 230) | 180 | (110 - 230) |
Creatinine | 1 | (0.8 - 1) | 1 | (0.8 - 1) | 1 | (0.8 - 1) | 1 | 0.8 - 1) | 1 | (0.8 - 1) |
Telemedicine | 9 | (8 - 10) | 9 | (8 - 10) | 9 | (8 - 10) | 9 | (8 - 10) | 10 | (9 - 10) |
Using univariate and bivariate analysis, as well as our clinical experience, we present two statistically valid logistic regression models that explore the factors influencing glycemic control in individuals with T2DM. The first model (M1) incorporates sex, telemedicine strategy, cardiovascular risk, education, age, and smoking. In the second model (M2), we analyze the Odds Ratio (OR) of study factors such as sex, telemedicine strategy, cardiovascular risk, education, and HDL cholesterol. Statistical significance was established for probability values (p-value) less than 0.05.
To validate the logistic regression models we explored the following analyses: 1) Specification with the Link Test approach (
Our primary objective was to identify patients with uncontrolled diabetes and maintain high accuracy in their classification. By doing so, we can implement effective strategies to reduce the number of uncontrolled patients and improve glycemic control in patients with T2DM. All analysis was conducted using Stata 16.1 statistical software (License: 301606237830).
The initial HbA1c% measurement showed that only 49.13% (141 patients) of the total population (287) had glycemic control (HbA1c% ≤ 6.5). The final measurement showed that 56.79% (163 patients) achieved control, resulting in 22 additional patients (15% of those without initial control) gaining glycemic control (
The telemedicine strategy was developed for one year and consisted of monthly follow-up through telephone calls to patients with T2DM.
Distribution of telephone calls and change in glycated hemoglobin.
According to the Wilcoxon rank paired sample test, there is a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the initial and final HbA1c% distributions. Moreover, when comparing the medians and paired samples using the sign test (
We used the polychoric correlation matrix to investigate the correlation and intensity of the factors under study on initial and final glycemic control (
Matrix of polychoric correlations of factors on initial glycemic control.
Matrix of polychoric correlations of factors on final glycemic control.
By the end of the study, the relationship between female and HDL cholesterol with the metabolic control of patients with T2DM was found to be stronger. The cardiovascular risk factor showed a low correlation but with statistical significance. These findings highlight the importance of considering these factors in studying the metabolic control of patients with T2DM. The study also confirmed the previously detected correlations, which are consistent with clinical experience (as shown in
To investigate the consistency of the OR estimates in models M1 and M2, we performed the adjustment with the resampling procedure known as Bootstrap using 1000 replications, of which 973 were valid, both for M1 and M2; the results are presented in
Factors that contribute to glycemic control through telephone calls. Significance: * p<.05; b = basal or reference value; 8 calls not included to avoid multicollinearity; models adjusted by age, education, and smoking were not statistically significant.
Education did not play a significant role in both models, but it helped the models fit better and has been observed to impact glycemic control in patients with T2DM. Age and smoking were added to M1 for a better fit but did not show statistical significance. Lastly, HDL cholesterol was added to M2, and with a p-value of 7.8%, it is considered significant, which aligns with clinical experience.
Metrics to evaluate the logistic model’s performance for metabolic control in the last HbA1c%.
Model | n (Bootstrap) | Link test1 | H-L (p-value) | AIC | BIC | cut point | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | ROC-AUC (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | 287 (973) | p_hat = 0.001; |
Chi2(8) = 7.83 (0.45) | 401.6 | 452.8 | 0.623 | 44.79 | 80.65 | 0.64 [0.58 – 0.71] |
M2 | 287 (973) | p_hat = 0.000; |
Chi2(8) = 2.98 (0.94) | 397.2 | 444.7 | 0.623 | 41.72 | 75.81 | 0.66 [0.59 – 0.72] |
1Significance predict (_hat) and square predict (_hat2).
H-L, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit; AIC, Akaike’s information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; ROC-AUC, the area under ROC curve; CI, confidence interval.
Patients who used the telemedicine strategy (telephone calls) had a lower percentage of glycated hemoglobin at the end of the follow-up period. The most significant benefit was observed in females and those receiving 11 telephone calls. High cardiovascular risk was a risk factor for poor glycemic control. Laboratory parameters used to measure cardiovascular risk remained constant in the initial and final measurements.
Telemedicine has been used since 1970 to overcome geographical barriers and provide greater access to healthcare in developing countries and rural areas. During the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems around the world had to adapt to the new circumstances of confinement, so providing medical care for glycemic control to patients with T2DM was a real logistical challenge, especially in those areas with a high prevalence of the disease such as the Mexico’s northern border (
Myers et al., in a randomized pilot study of telemedicine with a three-month follow-up for the control of T2DM in Hispanic and African American patients with poor glycemic control, determined that users who used the telephone showed a reduction of 2.57% in HbA1c (
The purpose of telemedicine is to improve accessibility to medical care in developing countries. However, it has also been used in developed countries such as Italy. Molfetta et al. in a DIAMONDS randomized clinical trial, determined that in patients with poor glycemic control, after a 6-month follow-up of self-monitoring and immediate reporting by telephone or SMS message, glucose levels had a reduction in HbA1c of -0.38% in comparison with the standard comparison group that did not use telemedicine (
The use of the telephone as a method of clinical monitoring and glycemic control has not only focused on telephone calls but has also used the SMS text messaging system, as in the study carried out in Barcelona, Spain, on patients in primary services care with suboptimal glycemic control where Ortiz-Zuñiga et al. demonstrate that users under this strategy improved the level of HbA1c by -0.67% in a 4-month follow-up period (
In Singapore, the clinical effectiveness of consultation by telephone compared to face-to-face by Koh et al., showed a reduction of -0.16% in glycated hemoglobin levels in patients who were seen face to face, while the decrease in HbA1c in patients seen by telephone was -0.11% (
The use of telephone calls for the management of type 2 diabetes has also been used in African countries such as Ghana, where Asante et al., in a randomized controlled pilot study comparing a telephone intervention and a traditional face-to-face intervention, demonstrated that participants who received 16 telephone calls had a -1.51% reduction in glycated hemoglobin. In contrast, the control group with face-to-face care had an increase of 0.26% (
One of the most representative studies in Mexico on glycemic control through telemedicine was the one developed in Tijuana, Mexico, in which Anzaldo-Campos et al., measured the impact of three intervention modalities: Dulce project, Dulce plus project mobile phone use, and traditional standard medical care, this study was able to determine that the group that had a -3.0% reduction in the HbA1c level 10-months after the study began was the Dulce project plus mobile phone use (
Our results contribute to telephone calls to manage glycemic control in patients with T2DM feasible in areas with a high prevalence of diabetes, like Mexico’s northern border. The effectiveness of glycemic control through telephone calls is associated with the number of phone calls received by participants; those who received more than 9 phone calls were more likely to improve the levels of HbA1c%. In addition, this may contribute to women’s health, given that women had a more significant reduction of HbA1c%. On the contrary, patients with high cardiovascular risk did not show improvement in glycemic control with this strategy (telephone calls), and there was no change (initial and final) in the laboratory parameters used to measure cardiovascular risk. Lastly, the use of telephone calls may possibly contribute to patients’ self-care and the provision of other health-care services like education, health promotion, and disease prevention in areas with high prevalence of non-communicable diseases.
The use of information and communication technologies is changing the way medical care is provided to patients with T2DM worldwide. However, further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of alternative digital tools such as text messages, video calls, and social platforms in managing glycemic control among patients living in regions with a high prevalence of T2DM. Furthermore, it is advised to examine the access to cell phones, knowledge of their use, and the extent of the digital divide among patients who experience social marginalization, are older, and reside in remote areas. This aspect has not been addressed in the current study, which is a weakness of the report.
One of the limitations of this retrospective cohort study was the information source, which came mainly from the Family Medicine Information System and not from a source purposedly developed for the study. The categorization of the frequency of telephone calls reduced the sample between groups, which could lead to less precise information among those who received fewer phone calls than those who received 11 phone calls. Another limitation was the age of the participants; they were middle-aged individuals who commonly had access to cell phones. Therefore, a sample that included older individuals would be recommended.
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
The studies involving humans were approved by Comité de Ética en Investigación 28048 del Hospital General de Zona con Medicina Familiar Número 1 de Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin in accordance with the national legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
VV: Methodology, Writing – original draft. HM: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FG: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. DV: Investigation, Writing – original draft. PM: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus; CI; LDL, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL, HbA1c, glycosylated hemoglobin; confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; ROC-AUC, Receiver Operating Characteristics-Area Under the Curve; AIC, Akaike´s Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion.