Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(60)
During the first cycle, 35.1% of patients achieved both goals (dual-goal achievers), whereas 21.6% achieved only the LDL-C goal (LDL-C achievers), 24.6% achieved only the HbA1c goal (HbA1c achievers), and 18.6% did not achieve either goal (no-goal achievers) (Table 1).
This study was designed to compare the risk of long-term health outcomes, including microvascular, macrovascular complications and mortality, across 4 cohorts: triple-goal, dual-goal, single-goal, and no-goal achievers.
We want our children to be goal-driven and goal-achievers.
Additional objectives included comparisons of clinical and economic outcomes in dual-goal achievers versus HbA1c-only achievers, dual-goal achievers versus no-goal achievers, and each group of single-goal achievers versus no-goal achievers.
Compared with no-goal achievers, dual-goal achievers had significantly fewer hospitalization days (0.81 [0.72–0.90]) and outpatient visits (0.86 [0.86–0.86]).
Compared with all other groups, dual-goal achievers were older (67.1 vs. 61.4 64.4 years).
Our study showed a 6% lower hazard of cardiovascular-related end point for HbA1c achievers compared with no-goal achievers.
In addition, relative to no-goal achievers, both groups of single-goal achievers had significant reductions in hazard for all categories of complications and surgical procedures, except microvascular complications among LDL-C achievers.
Compared with no-goal achievers, dual-goal achievers had a significant 19 30% lower hazard of the cardiovascular end point or diabetes-related microvascular or ACS-related events, and a 45 49% lower hazard of undergoing PCI or CABG.
After controlling for demographics, diabetes-related complications, comorbidities, surgical procedures, diabetic medication use, and health care utilization, dual-goal achievers generally used less health care resources compared with single- or no-goal achievers (Fig. 2).
A higher rate of macrovascular complications was observed among dual-goal (47.4%) and LDL-C achievers (45.6%) than among HbA1c (33.8%) and no-goal achievers (33.9%) (Table 1).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com