Younger Age is Associated with Treatment and Complication Outcomes Among Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients in Kigali University Teaching Hospital
Aims: Current diabetes mellitus (DM) prevention and treatment strategies rely on risk factors adapted from developed countries, which may not be effective in most poor sub-Saharan Africa settings. This study investigated the association between diabetic treatment outcomes and complications with sociodemographic and diabetic risk factors among type 2 DM (T2DM) patients in Rwanda. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed the records of T2DM patients who accessed care at Kigali University Teaching Hospital (CHUK) between January and December 2020, using a non-random sampling technique. Treatment outcomes (improved or not improved based on glycemic control target) and complication outcomes (presence or absence of DM-related microvascular and macrovascular events) were the primary outcome variables. Data were analyzed using t -tests, chi-square tests, and multivariable analyses as appropriate. Results: After adjusting for confounders, only age remained significantly associated with treatment and complication outcomes. The adjusted prevalence ratio (PR) of treatment outcomes for patients aged <50 years was 1.43 (95% CI 1.07–1.92; p = 0.016) and for those aged 50–64 years was 1.12 (95% CI 0.83–1.52; p = 0.462), both relative to the ≥65 years reference category. The adjusted PR for complication outcomes was 0.59 (95% CI 0.40–0.86; p = 0.005) for patients aged <50 years and 0.72 (95% CI 0.57–0.91; p = 0.007) for those aged 50–64 years, compared with the ≥65 years reference category. The adjusted PRs for smoking, alcohol consumption, pharmacological therapy, non-pharmacological therapy, and diet were attenuated and no longer statistically significant (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: The outcomes of diabetic treatment in Rwanda are associated with the age of the patients, rather than the type of therapy or the assessed sociodemographic and risk factors. The causal interpretation and generalizability of this study are limited by its cross-sectional design, non-random sampling, and the single-center setting.