Mary Tan
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Mary Tan has a total of 38 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Shaun G. Goodman
University of Toronto
2 shared publications Alexander Parkhomenko
Department of Medicine, Emergency Cardiology Department, Institute of Cardiology, Kiev, Ukraine
1 shared publication- Alice Y. Y. Cheng
Trillium Health Partners and Unity Health University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada
1 shared publication Anatoly Langer
Canadian Heart Research Centre, North York, Ontario, Canada
1 shared publication- Anatoly Langer
Professor of Medicine, University of Toronto; Canadian Heart Research Centre, Toronto, Canada
1 shared publication - Andrew T. Yan
Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 26 February 2016
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes
- Vol. 2 (4) , 277-284
Glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factor management in patients with diabetes with and without coronary artery disease: insights from the diabetes mellitus status in Canada survey
Aims Current diabetes guidelines recommend an individualized approach to glycemic control. There are limited data on the contemporary and comprehensive management of patients with diabetes in relation to coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and Results The Diabetes Mellitus Status in Canada survey included 5123 patients with type 2 diabetes seen in primary care in November 2012. Primary care physicians (PCPs) collected clinical data and specified the A1C target for each patient on standardized forms. We compared management strategies and achievement of treatment targets in patients with and without CAD. Among the 4994 patients with data on CAD history, 22.5% had CAD. PCPs were more likely to select a higher A1C target for patients with CAD (≤7.5% or ≤8.0%) versus without (≤7.0%). There was no difference in median A1C or in the proportion of patients with A1C ≤7.0% between the 2 groups. Compared to the group without known CAD, patients with CAD had a higher reported prevalence of hypoglycemia in the preceding 6 months; more frequently received aspirin, statins, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and were more likely to achieve blood pressure and LDL-C targets. Only 15.4% and 12.0% of patients with and without CAD (p=0.002), respectively, achieved all three guideline-recommended targets. Conclusion Compared to patients with diabetes without CAD, those with CAD more frequently had a less stringent A1C target selected by their primary care physicians but achieved similar glycemic control. Overall, risk factor management remained suboptimal in both groups. There remains an important opportunity to improve the care and outcome of patients with diabetes.
- 26 February 2016
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes
- Vol. 2 (4) , 277-284
Open AccessGlycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factor management in patients with diabetes with and without coronary artery disease: insights from the diabetes mellitus status in Canada survey
Aims Current diabetes guidelines recommend an individualized approach to glycemic control. There are limited data on the contemporary and comprehensive management of patients with diabetes in relation to coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and Results The Diabetes Mellitus Status in Canada survey included 5123 patients with type 2 diabetes seen in primary care in November 2012. Primary care physicians (PCPs) collected clinical data and specified the A1C target for each patient on standardized forms. We compared management strategies and achievement of treatment targets in patients with and without CAD. Among the 4994 patients with data on CAD history, 22.5% had CAD. PCPs were more likely to select a higher A1C target for patients with CAD (≤7.5% or ≤8.0%) versus without (≤7.0%). There was no difference in median A1C or in the proportion of patients with A1C ≤7.0% between the 2 groups. Compared to the group without known CAD, patients with CAD had a higher reported prevalence of hypoglycemia in the preceding 6 months; more frequently received aspirin, statins, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and were more likely to achieve blood pressure and LDL-C targets. Only 15.4% and 12.0% of patients with and without CAD (p=0.002), respectively, achieved all three guideline-recommended targets. Conclusion Compared to patients with diabetes without CAD, those with CAD more frequently had a less stringent A1C target selected by their primary care physicians but achieved similar glycemic control. Overall, risk factor management remained suboptimal in both groups. There remains an important opportunity to improve the care and outcome of patients with diabetes.