Awareness of the diagnosis, treatment, and control of diabetes mellitus in Brazil

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE  To estimate the proportions of awareness, treatment, and control of diabetes mellitus (DM) in the Brazilian adult population.

METHOD  This is a cross-sectional study, with data from a representative sample of the Brazilian population, taken from the National Health Survey(PNS 2014/2015). Outcomes were defined based on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurements, self-reported DM diagnosis, and use of hypoglycemic agents or insulin. The proportion of DM awareness, treatment, and control was estimated according to sociodemographic characteristics, health conditions, and access to health services, and their respective 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS  DM prevalence in the Brazilian population was of 8.6% (95%CI: 7.8–9.3): 68.2% (95%CI: 63.9–72.3) were aware of their diagnosis, 92.2% (95%CI: 88.6–94.7) of those who were aware were undergoing drug treatments, and, of these, 35.8% (95%CI: 30.5–41.6) had controlled HbA1c levels. The proportions of DM awareness, control, and treatment were lower in men aged 18 to 39 years, individuals with low education, without health insurance, and beneficiaries of the Bolsa Família program.

CONCLUSION  Approximately one in ten Brazilians has DM. A little more than half of this population is aware of their diagnosis, a condition measured by HbA1c dosage and clinical diagnosis. Among those who know, the vast majority are undergoing drug treatments. However, less than half of these have their HbA1c levels controlled. Worse scenarios were found in subgroups with high social vulnerability.

Diabetes Mellitus; Epidemiology; Awareness; Therapeutics

RESUMO

OBJETIVO  Estimar as proporções dos indivíduos que têm conhecimento do diagnóstico, tratamento e controle do diabetes mellitus (DM) na população adulta brasileira.

MÉTODO  Este é um estudo transversal, com dados de amostra representativa da população brasileira, provenientes da Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde (PNS 2014/2015). Os desfechos foram definidos com base na medida de hemoglobina glicada (HbA1c), no diagnóstico autorreferido de DM e no uso de hipoglicemiantes ou de insulina. Estimou–se a proporção do conhecimento, tratamento e controle do DM de acordo com as características sociodemográficas, condição de saúde e de acesso aos serviços de saúde, e seus respectivos intervalos de 95% de confiança (IC95%).

RESULTADOS  A prevalência de DM na população brasileira foi 8,6% (IC95% 7,8–9,3), 68,2% (IC95% 63,9–72,3) tinham conhecimento do seu diagnóstico, 92,2% (IC95% 88,6–94,7) dos que tinham conhecimento realizam tratamento medicamentoso, e desses, 35,8% (IC95% 30,5–41,6) tinham os níveis de HbA1c controlados. As proporções de conhecimento, controle e tratamento foram menores nos homens, com idade de 18 a 39 anos, indivíduos que possuem baixa escolaridade, sem plano de saúde e beneficiários do Programa Bolsa Família.

CONCLUSÃO  Aproximadamente um em cada dez brasileiros apresenta DM. Um pouco mais da metade desta população tem conhecimento do seu diagnóstico, condição aferida por dosagem de HbA1c e diagnóstico clínico. Entre os que sabem, a grande maioria está sob tratamento medicamentoso. Porém, menos da metade destes tem seus níveis de HbA1c controlados. Cenários piores foram encontrados em subgrupos com alta vulnerabilidade social.

Diabetes Mellitus; Epidemiologia; Conscientização; Terapêutica

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the major public health problems of the twenty-first century. The number of people with DM in the world is estimated at 537 million in 2021, with a projection of 643 million for 2030 and 783 million for 2045 ¹ . Approximately 50% of DM cases do not receive timely diagnosis ² , and about 90% of cases are type 2 ¹ . A study conducted with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) data obtained from the National Health Survey (PNS) showed a 6.6% prevalence of DM (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%) in the Brazilian population ³ . Additionally, self-reported DM increased from 6.2% in 2013 to 7.7% in 2019 ⁴ . In 2021, the Relatório de Vigilância de Fatores de Risco e Proteção para Doenças Crônicas por Inquérito Telefônico (Surveillance System for Risk and Protective Factors for Chronic Diseases by Telephone Survey – Vigitel) presented a 9.1% prevalence of self-reported DM in the Brazilian adult population ⁵ . Therefore, estimates of the magnitude of DM in the Brazilian population in general ³ , ⁶ , ⁷ , and in specific groups, such as men, black and mixed people, people with average or complete educational levels, and obese people, are well defined ⁸ .

Population studies in Latin America showed that the lack of knowledge on the DM diagnosis ranged from 10.3% to 50%, being higher in Guatemala (48.8%), Uruguay (48.7%), and Nicaragua (43.3%), and lower in Colombia (23.5%), South American meridian countries (20.2%), and Costa Rica (10.3–28.4%) ¹⁰ . The same study also showed that the treatment of this disease in patients ranged from 52.6% to 99%. The prevalence of DM control (HbA1c levels < 7%) ranged from 3.5% to 7.5% ¹⁰ . However, some studies performed this verification by means of fasting glycemia or casual glycemia and showed a 31.4% to 61.4% variation ¹⁰ . Specifically in Brazil, a study conducted in the 1990s ¹¹ , and, more recently, the Estudo Longitudinal de Saúde do Adulto (ELSA) ⁶ identified about 50% of ignorance of the diagnosis.

DM control on a populational level requires an articulation of actions directed to the prevention, detection, and control of the pathology, including a partnership between civil society and government agencies ⁷ . Thus, it is possible to highlight the need to estimate disease control parameters in population subgroups, such as the ability to detect/know the diagnosis, treatment, and control, in addition to its prevalence, as has been discussed internationally ⁸ , ⁹ .

Inadequate DM control can lead to several complications, such as blindness, chronic kidney disease, and high risk of cardiovascular diseases, and all these outcomes contribute to the increase of health service costs. DM is a manageable disease in primary health care (PHC) services, since public health systems have effective strategies for its early detection, treatment, and control. In Brazil, a study with a regional sample showed worse levels of glycemic control in patients treated by the public health service ¹² . A study developed in Latin America’s private health services, including the Brazilian health service, showed that blood glucose levels are less controlled in patients with type 2 DM (DM2) ¹³ .

The reliable assessment of the magnitude and treatment of population DM is only possible with representative studies of the Brazilian population and diagnostic techniques of high sensitivity and specificity. Despite the specific data on DM treatment and control in Brazil, the evaluation of these parameters in the population needs to advance. Thus, the aim of this study is to estimate the proportions of awareness, treatment, and control in a representative sample of the Brazilian adult population.

METHODS

Study Design and Population

The National Health Survey ( Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde – PNS) was conducted in 2013 and extended until 2015 for the collection of biological material. Details about the sampling methodology of the PNS are presented in previous publications ¹⁴ . This is a survey with cluster sampling in three stages: the census tracts correspond to a fixed number of private households, and for each household a participant aged 18 years or older is randomly selected. The total number of households visited was 81,167. Of these, 69,994 contained residents. At the end, 64,384 home interviews and 60,202 individual interviews were conducted.

The collection of biological material was performed in a subsample with 25% of the census tracts surveyed, totaling 8,952 individuals, who answered the basic questionnaire and were the subjects of our study. To obtain population estimates, the last phase included the weight of post-stratification according to sex, age, education, and region to effectively represent the adult population of the country ³ .

Interviews were conducted through the application of a questionnaire, which took place at the participants’ home, by trained interviewers. Sociodemographic data, personal medical history and lifestyle variables were recorded. It also included aspects related to diabetes diagnoses and treatment, measurements of weight, height, waist circumference and blood pressure, in residents aged 18 years or more in each randomly selected household.

Biological Material Collection

Blood material (7 ml) was collected at any time of the day, without fasting ¹⁴ . HbA1c was determined from high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of a sample stored in a tube containing ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). It is worth mentioning that the full described step was performed by laboratories certified by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program ¹⁴ .

Study Variables

The diabetes diagnosis was defined using HbA1c levels ≥ 6.5% or levels of medication for the disease. Awareness of the diagnosis was defined by the proportion of participants who reported using antidiabetic medication or having received the diagnosis from a health professional. The proportion of participants in treatment was obtained from information on the use of diabetes medications or insulin. The control was defined by two criteria: the proportion of participants who presented HbA1c values < 6.5%, and the proportion of participants with HbA1c < 7% ² ( Figure 1 ). These limits were defined despite the lack of consensus, and recent evidence indicate that the 7% target is related to the prevention of chronic complications ¹⁵ . This cutoff point should also be further relaxed for individuals at risk of hypoglycemia, such as older adults, being HbA1c < 7.5% in these cases ¹⁵ .

Figure 1
Outcomes of interest: awareness of the diagnosis, treatment, and control of diabetes mellitus.

The sociodemographic variables used were: sex (male and female); age group (18 to 30, 31 to 40, 41 to 50, 51 to 59 and ≥ 60); race/skin color (white, black, yellow/indigenous, and mixed); schooling (no education until complete elementary school, incomplete and complete high school, or incomplete and complete higher education); region of residence (North, Northeast, Southeast, South and Midwest); private health plan (has health insurance or does not have health insurance); receipt of Bolsa Família (receives Bolsa Família or does not receive Bolsa Família ) and self-perceived health (good/excellent, regular, poor, or very poor).

Data Analysis

The prevalence of DM was calculated according to the diagnostic criteria defined in this study. Next, estimates of the proportion of other outcomes of interest (DM awareness, treatment, and control) and their respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated. These proportions were also estimated according to sociodemographic characteristics, and Pearson’s chi-square test was used to analyze the differences in the proportions of outcomes between the groups. All estimates were calculated in the Stata 14.0 software survey module.

Ethical Aspects

This study used a secondary, publicly available, and free of charge database, respecting the participants’ confidentiality, not requiring prior approval by the Ethics and Research Committee. The PNS was approved by the National Research Ethics Commission, under CAAE No. 10853812.7.0000.0008, and complies with all ethical precepts, in accordance with the recommendations for research with human beings of Resolution No. 466/12.

RESULTS

The adult population was composed mostly of women (52.1%), of the white race/skin color (47.8%), with low schooling (49.3%), without health insurance (70.3%), non-beneficiaries of the Bolsa Família program (90.6%), with excellent self-perceived health (64.9%), and mainly from the Southeast region (44.3%) ( Table 1 ). DM prevalence of DM was estimated in 8.6% (95%CI: 7.8–9.3) of this population. Most people with DM were female (60.7%), aged over 60 years (54.3%), with low schooling (67.2%), poor self-perceived health (59.5%), and lived in the Southeast region of the country (49.3%).

Table 1
Sociodemographic characteristics of the study population and according to the occurrence of diabetes mellitus in a representative sample of the Brazilian population (n = 8,435).

Sociodemographic characteristics	Total		Diabetes				p-value
			Yes		No
	%	95%CI	% a	95%CI	% a	95%CI
Sex							0.0001
Male	47.8	46.4–49.3	39.4	35.0–43.9	48.7	47.1–50.2
Female	52.2	50.7–53.6	60.7	56.1–56.0	51.4	49.8–52.9
Age (years)							< 0.0001
18–39	41.1	39.7–42.6	09.4	06.8–12.8	44.1	42.6–45.7
40–49	19.7	18.6–20.8	12.8	10.0–16.2	20.3	19.2–21.5
50–59	17.0	15.9–17.9	23.6	20.1–27.6	16.3	15.5–17.4
≥ 60	22.2	21.2–23.4	54.3	49.7–58.7	19.2	18.2–20.4
Race/Skin Color							0.288
White	47.8	46.4–49.3	48.4	43.9–53.0	47.8	46.2–49.3
Black	9.3	8.5–10.2	11.3	08.7–14.7	09.2	08.3–10.1
Yellow and indigenous	0.9	0.7–1.3	0.9	00.5–01.5	01.0	00.7–01.3
Brown	42.0	40.5–43.3	39.4	35.2–43.6	42.1	40.7–43.6
Education level							< 0.0001
No education to complete primary education	49.3	47.8–50.7	67.2	62.7–71.5	47.6	46.1–49.1
Incomplete and complete secondary education	33.8	32.4–35.2	23.3	19.4–27.6	34.8	33.3–36.3
Incomplete and complete higher education	16.9	15.8–18.1	09.5	07.2–12.5	17.7	16.4–18.9
Health insurance							0.586
Yes	29.7	28.3–31.1	28.6	24.6–33.0	29.8	28.4–31.3
No	70.3	68.9–71.6	71.4	67.1–75.4	70.2	68.7–71.6
Bolsa Família							0.427
Yes	9.4	8.7–10.1	08.4	06.1–11.4	09.5	08.8–10.3
No	90.6	89.8–91.3	91.6	88.6–93.9	90.5	89.7–91.2
Self-perceived health							< 0.0001
Good and excellent	64.9	63.6–62.2	36.0	31.8–40.5	67.6	66.3–68.9
Poor, very poor, and regular	35.1	33.8–36.4	64.0	59.5–68.2	32.4	31.1–33.8
Region							0.019
North	6.9	6.6–7.3	05.1	04.3–06.2	07.1	06.7–07.5
Northeast	26.3	25.2–27.3	23.8	20.9–27.0	26.5	25.4–27.6
Southeast	44.3	42.8–45.8	49.3	44.8–53.8	43.8	42.2–45.5
South	15.0	14.1–15.6	13.4	10.9–16.4	15.1	14.2–16.2
Midwest	7.5	7.0–8.0	08.3	06.8–10.2	07.4	06.9–08.8

• 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.
• ^a Pearson’s chi-square test.

We estimated that 68.2% (95%CI: 63.9–72.3) of people with diabetes were aware of their diagnosis and, of these, 92.2% (95%CI: 88.6–94.7) were on medication treatments. We estimated that 35.9% (95%CI: 30.5–41.6) of people had HbA1c levels considered normal (< 6.5%) and 48.1% (95%CI: 42.2–53.9) had HbA1c levels below 7%, that is, with normalized or controlled glucose homeostasis, among those who received some type of pharmacological treatment ( Figure 2 ).

Figure 2
Prevalence and 95% confidence intervals of awareness of the diagnosis, treatment, and control of diabetes mellitus in the Brazilian population.

The proportion of DM awareness was of 41.7% (95%CI: 25.6–60.0) in 18 to 39 years age group, 65.7% (95%CI: 60.6–70.5) among participants without health insurance, 47.5% (95%CI: 31.6–64.0) in the group which received Bolsa Família , 51.8% (95%CI: 44.0–56.0) among those with good/excellent self-perceived health, and 51.5% (95%CI: 42.9–60.0) in residents of the North region of the country ( Table 2 ). The same table shows that the proportion of drug treatment was lower in males (88%) (95%CI: 80.0–93.1), those among the 40 to 49 years age group (84.6%) (95%CI: 61.6–94.9), and those who did not have health insurance (89.9%) (95%CI: 85.0–93.4).

Table 2
Proportion of diabetes mellitus awareness, treatment, and control in the Brazilian adult population according to sociodemographic variables (n = 8,435).

Sociodemographic characteristics	Diabetes mellitus awareness			Diabetes mellitus treatment			HbA1c control < 6.5%			HbA1c control < 7.0%
	%	95%CI	p a value	%	95%CI	p a value	%	95%CI	p a value	%	95%CI	p a value
Total	68.2	63.9–72.3		92.2	88.6–94.7		35.9	30.5–41.6		48.1	42.2–53.9
Sex			0.84			0.268			0.98			0.271
Male	67.6	60.6–74.0		88.0	80.0–93.1		35.7	26.8–45.7		43.6	33.9–53.8
Female	68.6	63.0–73.7		94.7	91.3–96.8		35.9	29.4–42.9		50.6	43.5–57.7
Age (years)			< 0.0001			0.421			0.005			0.002
18–39	41.7	25.6–60.0		94.0	76.9–98.7		14.2	05.4–32.7		14.2	05.4–32.7
40–49	52.1	39.1–64.9		84.6	61.6–94.9		28.4	14.4–48.1		48.1	0.29–0.68
50–59	71.6	63.1–78.8		92.5	84.7–96.5		25.3	16.3–37.1		38.3	0.26–0.50
≥ 60	74.8	69.3–79.6		93.0	88.8–96.5		42.2	36.2–50.5		55.1	0.42–0.62
Race/Skin Color			0.117			0.919			0.7132			0.658
White	72.7	66.0–78.4		92.2	86.9–92.3		38.0	30.1–46.6		50.6	42.1–59.1
Black	60.8	46.3–73.6		90.9	76.2–96.9		34.0	18.7–53.4		48.3	30.1–66.9
Yellow and indigenous	48.2	23.1–74.3		100.0	–		40.3	12.1–76.8		40.3	12.1–76.8
Brown	65.3	59.1–71.1		91.3	85.8–94.8		33.2	25.9–41.4		44.5	36.2–53.1
Education level			0.668			0.547			0.735			0.848
No education to complete primary education	68.2	63.0–73.0		91.1	86.3–94.3		35.3	29.1–42.1		48.9	42.2–55.7
Incomplete and complete secondary education	66.1	56.1–74.8		93.9	85.1–97.6		34.2	22.6–48.1		44.8	31.7–58.6
Incomplete and complete higher education	73.4	59.8–83.6		95.5	82.2–99.0		42.4	26.4–60.2		49.6	32.1–67.3
Health insurance			0.079			0.015			0.976			0.79
Yes	74.3	65.9–81.2		96.9	92.3–98.8		35.7	26.7–45.8		46.9	36.8–57.2
No	65.7	60.6–70.5		89.9	85.0–93.4		35.9	29.4–42.9		48.6	41.6–55.7
Bolsa Família			0.006			0.221			0.028			0.41
Yes	47.5	31.6–64.0		96.8	85.9–99.3		17.6	07.9–34.5		38.5	19.3–62.1
No	70.1	65.7–74.2		91.9	88.1–94.5		37.0	31.4–43.0		48.7	42.7–54.7
Self-perceived health			< 0.0001			0.364			0.002			0.0077
Good and excellent	51.8	44.0–56.0		90.0	82.6–94.5		50.8	39.3–62.1		61.6	49.7–72.2
Poor, very poor, and regular	77.4	72.7–81.5		93.0	88.5–95.8		30.4	24.7–36.9		43.1	36.6–49.5
Region			0.004			0.864			0.71			0.9052
North	51.5	42.9–60.0		92.8	83.6–97.0		37.3	26.1–49.9		47.1	35.1–59.5
Northeast	59.2	52.7–65.4		92.1	86.6–95.5		40.0	32.0–48.6		50.8	42.3–59.3
Southeast	73.8	66.2–80.2		92.9	86.4–96.4		35.7	27.0–44.7		47.5	38.3–56.9
South	67.2	56.1–76.7		90.9	79.5–96.2		30.0	19.0–43.9		44.5	31.4–58.4
Midwest	71.3	60.9–79.8		89.1	78.6–94.8		37.1	25.9–49.8		50.5	37.7–63.2

• 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.
• ^a Pearson’s chi-square test.

Table 2 also shows the proportions of DM patients who are under control using two cutoff points: HbA1c < 6.5% was 35.8%, and HbA1c < 7% was 48.1%. There was also a lower control, from the first cutoff point, in males (35.7%) (95%CI: 26.8–45.7) and those who reported poor self-perceived health (30.4%) (95%CI: 24.7–36.9). Regarding the second cutoff point, a lower control was observed in males (43.6%) (95%CI: 33.9–53.8), in those with incomplete/complete secondary education (44.8%) (95%CI: 31.7–58.6), and those who reported poor self-perceived health (43.1%) (95%CI: 36.6–49.5).

DISCUSSION

In this study, we estimate that approximately one in ten Brazilians has a diabetes diagnosis and, of these, 68.2% are aware of their diagnosis. In addition, most diabetics are undergoing drug treatment, and less than half of these have their HbA1c levels below 6.5%, that is, controlled. When considering more flexible glycemic control goals,we observed that 48.1% of the adult population has HbA1c < 7%, and 65.7% of older adults have HbA1c < 7.5%.

The highest DM prevalence was in the group over 60 years of age, who declared themselves to be of the yellow/indigenous race/skin color, with low schooling, with poor self-perceived health, and in Brazil’s Midwest and Southeast populations. The proportions of DM awareness, control, and treatment were lower in men aged 18 to 39 years, individuals with low education, without health insurance, and beneficiaries of the Bolsa Família program.

The high proportions of participants who are unaware of their diagnosis are, in this study, concentrated in groups of low socioeconomic levels, participants of the B olsa Família program, and residents of the northern region of the country, as another study already observed ¹⁶ .

An additional aspect, which was shown in a recent study, is that populations with few socioeconomic resources also have high rates of smoking, overweight and obesity prevalence, low consumption of fruits and vegetables, and high consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, and, in women, low access to cervical and breast cancer screening programs ¹⁶ .

Strategies, such as the National Campaign for DM Detection, which reached more than 20 million Unified Health System (SUS) users aged over 40 years ¹⁷ , should be reissued. However, strategies for the use of light care, low cost and wide accessibility technology for the Brazilian population may be necessary.

The Brazilian population is certainly not far from global prevalence estimates. A recent study shows that approximately 50% of adult diabetics are not aware of their diagnosis, and that, of these, 84.3% are living in developing countries ¹⁸ . A low-cost, non-invasive, and easy-to-apply alternative would be the use of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC), which measures the risk of DM2 development in adults. This strategy has had its validity demonstrated at a national level ¹⁹ .

Low prevalence of controlled diabetes, measured by glycated hemoglobin levels (< 6.5%), was present in the low schooling and beneficiaries of the Bolsa Família program groups. These findings reinforce the link between social vulnerability and low access to effective disease control, corroborating findings of other studies ²⁰ .

Estimates using data from the PNS 2019 showed that younger people had lower medication consumption ³ , which can be justified by the lower severity of the pathology, and it is also possible to favor management through non-pharmacological measures, such as encouraging physical activity and healthy eating. In addition, type 1 DM (DM1), not identified in this study, may present lower glycemic control, due to the severity of the disease, as well as its resistance to medication use ²¹ .

We were also able to identify a higher frequency of hospitalization in young people aged 18 to 29 years, which is understandable given the higher prevalence of DM1 in young adults, the acute symptoms of the disease and the non-adaptation to new care and lower adherence to caregiver practices ⁴ . Lower hospitalization due to DM or complications were identified among women, which may mean better disease control among them, which coincides with our findings ⁴ .

The high proportion of people with diabetes in treatment estimated in this study refers to the public policies implemented to improve access to medication, through the Popular Pharmacy ( Farmácia Popular ) and Health Has No Price ( Saúde Não Tem Preço ) programs, which allow free access to these drugs in Basic Health Units and pharmacies accredited to the programs. The surveillance systems also showed that 70.3% of people diagnosed with DM obtained free oral medicines through the SUS pharmacy or the Popular Pharmacy ( Farmácia Popular ) program, and that 90% had free access to insulin ²² . Notably, the National Survey on Access, Use and Promotion of the Rational Use of Medicines ( Pesquisa Nacional sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos – PNAUM), a population-based household survey, showed that 21.4% of participants paid for diabetes medication, and 78.6% got it for free ²³ . Still confirming these conclusions, 57.4% of the PNS 2013 participants reported obtaining drugs for diabetes via the Farmácia Popular program ²⁴ . In this study, we do not have information to clarify whether the prevalence of participants without treatment is related to the choice of medications or to access difficulties ²⁵ .

In PHC, the follow-up of patients with diabetes after diagnosis includes medical and nursing consultations, participation in diabetic groups. The number of consultations with each professional changes according to the patient’s clinical condition ²⁶ . It is important to emphasize, for those who are under glycemic control, the need to perform fasting glucose and HbA1c tests twice a year and, for those who are not, every three months ²⁶ .

The maintenance of glucose levels within the normal range is essential for coping with DM. In this study, the prevalence of control was low, not far from findings in other populations, such as those of Iranian Kurdistan (18.30%) ²⁷ , Korea (42.5%) ²⁸ , and Myanmar (40.8%) ²⁹ . Previous studies estimated a prevalence of 26% and 78% of glycemic level control in a population attended by public health services and in a population attended by private services, respectively, but these are local studies without national representation, which makes it difficult to compare them to our study ¹² , ¹³ .

Failures in glycemic control may contribute to increase risks of cardiovascular diseases, nephropathies, neuropathies, retinopathies, and hospitalizations ³⁰ . It is noteworthy that the complexity inherent to drug therapies contributes to increase medication error risks and requires the user to have the skills to comply with the care provided by health professionals ³¹ , ³² . The challenge of drug therapy was accompanied by the quantity of drugs in use, resulting from patients with high complexity, who used polypharmacy ³³ . The patient’s empowerment in the self-care process, health education, especially in relation to medication schedule information, and the correct use of drugs in accordance with the medical prescription, are necessary strategies to achieve disease control ³⁴ .

Glycemic control is essential to decrease the risk of DM complications and cardiovascular diseases. Other important factors are the lipid profile monitoring and the appropriate treatment to achieve glycemic control. DM management in primary care follows a strategy of healthy lifestyle habit encouragement. However, in practice, the program is mostly focused on medicine supply. This work process hinders the achievement of objectives such as the recognition and dimensioning of health problems, both individually and collectively, which help more effectively in health actions/interventions, as shown in a study developed in the city of São Paulo ³⁵ . Studies show that there is no link between patients with DM and the actions of health professionals, corroborating for the discontinuity of treatment adherence and directly impacting its control ³⁶ .

The low DM control results identified in this study can be explained by the complexity of the management of the disease, which includes the monitoring of glycemic values, adherence to treatment and the inclusion of regular physical activity and diet changes ³⁷ . In this perspective, the strategies that contribute to the patient’s empowerment can help in the process of developing the adoption of new attitudes and skills, which will promote changes in habits/lifestyle and, consequently, in self-care. Clinical trials using education strategies through telephone interventions, training programs and home visits, have shown that these interventions contribute positively to an improvement of HbA1c levels results, to empowerment and self-care ³⁸ . Home visits by community health agents (CHA) contribute to controlling and supervising treatment and improving adherence to self-care practices related to DM2 ³⁹ .

Notably, the magnitude of harm shown may worsen as a result of the new PHC financing model in SUS ⁴⁰ , called Prevent Brazil ( Previne Brasil ), because it only strengthens biomedical strategies, which could lead to delays in DM detection and worsen and decrease control prevalence. In addition, it is worth pointing out that the effects generated by the covid-19 pandemic may, in the short term, affect the performance of care provided to chronic diseases, worsening control and detection levels of the disease ⁴¹ .

A limitation of this study is the lack of data regarding the medication used, its time of use, and the adherence to treatment, which was limited to recording only the use of antidiabetic drugs and/or insulin injections. Non-pharmacological measures are also necessary for glycemic control, and they were not evaluated in this study. These data would allow a better understanding of the low performance of glycemic level control found in the Brazilian population, despite the wide access to medication and treatment. However, the use of population-based data and national representativeness constitutes adequate external validity.

We highlight that the measurement of HbA1c levels collected from venous and non-capillary blood was used, which is considered the gold standard for detecting the disease. The lack of consensus to define the cutoff point of HbA1c in disease control hinders the process of evaluation and monitoring of DM. Therefore, this study chose to work with two cutoff points.

Another limitation is the non-distinction between the DM types (DM1 or DM2). This is an unprecedented population study that uses laboratory data with representativeness of the Brazilian population to estimate DM awareness, treatment, and control, which are fundamental aspects to help public health programs cope with the disease.

The proportion of DM awareness in the Brazilian population was estimated at 68%, and of these, 92% were undergoing drug treatment. Adequate control was estimated at 36%, considering the strictest criterion (HbA1c < 6.5%). Some population subgroups, such as those who do not have health insurance, those who reported having poor self-perceived health, and beneficiaries of the Bolsa Família program, presented worse performance regarding awareness of the disease. The data from this study may contribute to strengthen public policies that aim to promote healthy lifestyles. The implementation of innovative strategies to assist in DM control is fundamental to face the disease burden attributed to DM in Brazil.

REFERENCES

• ¹International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas . 10th ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2021.
• ²Saeedi P, Petersohn I, Salpea P, Malanda B, Karuranga S, Unwin N, et al. Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9 th edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019 Nov;157:107843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2019.107843
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2019.107843
• ³Malta DC, Duncan BB, Schmidt MI, Machado IE, Silva AG, Bernal RTI, et al. Prevalência de diabetes mellitus determinada pela hemoglobina glicada na população adulta brasileira, Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2019; 22(Suppl 2):E190006. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720190006.supl.2
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720190006.supl.2
• ⁴Malta DC, Ribeiro EG, Gomes CS, Alves FTA, Stopa SR, Sardinha LMV, et al. Indicadores da linha de cuidado de pessoas com diabetes no Brasil: Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde 2013 e 2019. Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2022;31(spe1):e2021382. https://doi.org/10.1590/SS2237-9622202200011.especial
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/SS2237-9622202200011.especial
• ⁵Ministério da Saúde (BR). Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Vigilância de Doenças e Agravos não Transmissíveis e Promoção da Saúde. Vigitel Brasil 2021: vigilância de fatores de risco e proteção para doenças crônicas por inquérito telefônico: estimativas sobre frequência e distribuição sociodemográfica de fatores de risco e proteção para doenças crônicas nas capitais dos 26 estados brasileiros e no Distrito Federal em 2021. Brasília, DF: Ministério da Saúde, 2021.
• ⁶Schmidt MI, Hoffmann JF, Diniz MFS, Lotufo PA, Griep RH, Bensenor IM, et al. High prevalence of diabetes and intermediate hyperglycemia - The Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2014 Nov;6(123):123. https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-5996-6-123
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-5996-6-123
• ⁷Fernandes JR, Ogurtsova K, Linnenkamp U, Guariguata L, Seuring T, Zhang P, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas estimates of 2014 global health expenditures on diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016 Jul;117:48-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2016.04.016
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2016.04.016
• ⁸Irazola V, Rubinstein A, Bazzano L, Calandrelli M, Chung-Shiuan C, Elorriaga N, et al. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of diabetes and impaired fasting glucose in the Southern Cone of Latin America. PLoS One. 2017 Sep;12(9):e0183953. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183953
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183953
• ⁹Shirani S, Kelishadi R, Sarrafzadegan N, Khosravi A, Sadri G, Amani A, et al. Awareness, treatment and control of hypertension, dyslipidaemia and diabetes mellitus in an Iranian population: the IHHP study. East Mediterr Health J. 2009;15(6):1455–63.
• ¹⁰Avilés-Santa ML, Monroig-Rivera A, Soto-Soto A, Lindberg NM. Current state of diabetes mellitus prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control in Latin America: challenges and innovative solutions to improve health outcomes across the continent. Curr Diab Rep. 2020 Oct;20(11):62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-020-01341-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-020-01341-9
• ¹¹Malerbi DA, Franco LJ; The Brazilian Cooperative Group on the Study of Diabetes Prevalence. Multicenter study of the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and impaired glucose tolerance in the urban Brazilian population aged 30-69 yr. Diabetes Care. 1992 Nov;15(11):1509-16. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.15.11.1509
  » https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.15.11.1509
• ¹²Panarotto D, Träsel HA, Oliveira MS, Gravina LB, Teles AR. Controle glicêmico de pacientes diabéticos tipo 2 nos serviços público e privado de Saúde. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol. 2009 Aug;53(6):733-40. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27302009000600007
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27302009000600007
• ¹³Lopez Stewart G, Tambascia M, Rosas Guzmán J, Etchegoyen F, Ortega Carrión J, Artemenko S. Control of type 2 diabetes mellitus among general practitioners in private practice in nine countries of Latin America. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2007 Jul;22(1):12-20. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1020-49892007000600002
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1020-49892007000600002
• ¹⁴Szwarcwald CL, Malta DC, Souza Júnior PR, Almeida WS, Damacena GN, Pereira CA, et al. Exames laboratoriais da Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde: metodologia de amostragem, coleta e análise dos dados. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2019;22 Suppl 02:e190004. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720190004.supl.2
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720190004.supl.2
• ¹⁵Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes. Diretrizes da Sociedade Brasileira de Diabetes 2019–2020: gestão biênio 2018–2019. São Paulo: Clannad; 2019.
• ¹⁶Malta DC, Bernal RT, Carvalho QH, Pell JP, Dundas R, Leyland A, et al. Mulheres e avaliação das desigualdades na distribuição de fatores de risco para Doenças Crônicas Não Transmissíveis (DCNT), Vigitel 2016–2017. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2020;23:e200058. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720200058
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720200058
• ¹⁷Ministério da Saúde (BR), Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde. Avaliação do Plano de Reorganização da Atenção à Hipertensão Arterial e ao Diabetes Mellitus no Brasil. Brasília, DF: Ministério da Saúde; 2004. (Série C. Projetos, programas e relatórios).
• ¹⁸Beagley J, Guariguata L, Weil C, Motala AA. Global estimates of undiagnosed diabetes in adults. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014 Feb;103(2):150-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2013.11.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2013.11.001
• ¹⁹Barim EM, McLellan KC, Ribeiro RS, Carvalho JA, Lindström J, Tuomilehto J, et al. Translation and cultural adaptation into Brazilian Portuguese of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and reliability assessment. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2020 Jun;23:e200060. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720200060
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720200060
• ²⁰Malta DC, Bernal RT, Gomes CS, Cardoso LS, Lima MG, Barros MB. Inequalities in the use of health services by adults and elderly people with and without noncommunicable diseases in Brazil, 2019 National Health Survey. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2021 Dec;24 suppl 2:e210003. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720210003.supl.2
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720210003.supl.2
• ²¹Gomes MB, Coral M, Cobas RA, Dib SA, Canani LH, Nery M, et al. Prevalence of adults with type 1 diabetes who meet the goals of care in daily clinical practice: a nationwide multicenter study in Brazil. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012 Jul;97(1):63-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2012.02.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2012.02.008
• ²²Francisco PM, Rodrigues PS, Costa KS, Tavares NU, Tierling VL, Barros MB, et al. Prevalência de diabetes em adultos e idosos, uso de medicamentos e fontes de obtenção: uma análise comparativa de 2012 e 2016. Rev Bras Epidemiol.
• ²³Meiners MM, Tavares NU, Guimarães LS, Bertoldi AD, Pizzol TD, Luiza VL, et al. Acesso e adesão a medicamentos entre pessoas com diabetes no Brasil: evidências da PNAUM. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2017;20(3):445-59. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5497201700030008
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5497201700030008
• ²⁴Costa KS, Tavares NU, Mengue SS, Pereira MA, Malta DC, Silva JB. Obtenção de medicamentos para hipertensão e diabetes no Programa Farmácia Popular do Brasil: resultados da Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde, 2013. Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2016;25(1):33-44. https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742016000100004
  » https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742016000100004
• ²⁵Gontijo MF, Ribeiro AQ, Klein CH, Rozenfeld S, Acurcio FA. Uso de anti-hipertensivos e antidiabéticos por idosos: inquérito em Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil. Cad Saude Publica. 2012 Jul;28(7):1337-46. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2012000700012
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2012000700012
• ²⁶Secretaria Municipal de Saúde e Defesa Civil (RJ). Superintendência de Atenção Primária. Guia de Referência Rápida: Diabetes Mellitus: versão profissional. / Rio de Janeiro: SMSDC, 2013 [cited 2023 Feb 2]. Available from: http://www.rio.rj.gov.br/dlstatic/10112/4446958/4111923/GuiaDM.pdf
  » http://www.rio.rj.gov.br/dlstatic/10112/4446958/4111923/GuiaDM.pdf
• ²⁷Safari–Faramani R, Rajati F, Tavakol K, Hamzeh B, Pasdar Y, Moradinazar M, Najafi F. Prevalence, awareness, treatment, control, and the associated factors of Diabetes in an Iranian Kurdish population. J Diabetes Res. 2019; 3;2019:5869206. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5869206
  » https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5869206
• ²⁸Boo S, Yoon YJ, Oh H. Evaluating the prevalence, awareness, and control of hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia in Korea using the NHIS-NSC database: a cross-sectional analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Dec;97(51):e13713. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013713
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013713
• ²⁹Aung WP, Bjertness E, Htet AS, Stigum H, Kjøllesdal MK. Trends in Diabetes prevalence, awareness, treatment and control in Yangon Region, Myanmar, between 2004 and 2014, two cross-sectional studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep;16(18):3461. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183461
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183461
• ³⁰Lai YR, Huang CC, Chiu WC, Liu RT, Tsai NW, Wang HC, et al. HbA1C Variability is strongly associated with the severity of cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in patients with Type 2 Diabetes after longer diabetes duration. Front Neurosci. 2019 May;13:458. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00458
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00458
• ³¹Nogueira M, Otuyama LJ, Rocha PA, Pinto VB. Pharmaceutical care-based interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2020 Jan;18:eRW4686. https://doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2020RW4686
  » https://doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2020RW4686
• ³²Chan JC, Lim LL, Wareham NJ, Shaw JE, Orchard TJ, Zhang P, et al. The Lancet Commission on diabetes: using data to transform diabetes care and patient lives. Lancet. 2021 Dec;396(10267):2019-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736 (20)32374-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736 (20)32374-6
• ³³Pantuzza LL, Ceccato MD, Silveira MR, Pinto IV, Reis AM. Validation and standardization of the Brazilian version of the Medication Regimen Complexity Index for older adults in primary care. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2018 Jun;18(6):853-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.13261
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.13261
• ³⁴Nanayakkara N, Pease A, Ranasinha S, Wischer N, Andrikopoulos S, Speight J, et al. Depression and diabetes distress in adults with type 2 diabetes: results from the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA) 2016. Sci Rep. 2018 May;8(1):7846. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26138-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26138-5
• ³⁵Venancio SI, Rosa TE, Bersusa AA. Atenção integral à hipertensão arterial e diabetes mellitus: implementação da Linha de Cuidado em uma Região de Saúde do estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Physis. 2016;26(1):113-35. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-73312016000100008
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-73312016000100008
• ³⁶Silva JV, Mantovani MF, Kalinke LP, Ulbrich EM. Avaliação do Programa de Hipertensão Arterial e Diabetes Mellitus na visão dos usuários. Rev Bras Enferm. 2015;68(4):626-32. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167.2015680408i
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167.2015680408i
• ³⁷Rubin RR, Peyrot M, Kruger DF, Travis LB. Barriers to insulin injection therapy: patient and health care provider perspectives. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35(6):1014-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721709345773
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721709345773
• ³⁸Hernandez-Tejada MA, Campbell JA, Walker RJ, Smalls BL, Davis KS, Egede LE. Diabetes empowerment, medication adherence and self-care behaviors in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012 Jul;14(7):630-4. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2011.0287
  » https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2011.0287
• ³⁹Souza DA, Reis IA, Cortez DN, Afonso GS, Torres HC. Avaliação da visita domiciliar para o empoderamento do autocuidado em diabetes. Acta Paul Enferm. 2017;30(4):350–7. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0194201700052
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0194201700052
• ⁴⁰Ministério da Saúde (BR). Portaria nº 2.979, de 12 de novembro de 2019. Institui o Programa Previne Brasil, que estabelece novo modelo de financiamento de custeio da Atenção Primária à Saúde no âmbito do SUS, alterando a Portaria de Consolidação nº 6/GM/MS, de 28 de setembro de 2017. Diário Oficial União. 13 nov 2019.
• ⁴¹World Health Organization. NCD Department. Rapid assessment of service delivery for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) during the COVID–19 pandemic: final results. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.

• Funding: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (Fapemig – APQ-02591-21).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  03 Nov 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  05 Nov 2022
• Accepted
  09 Mar 2023