AIM: As the practice of multiple assessments of glucose concentration throughout the day increases for people with diabetes, there is a need for an assessment of glycaemic control weighted for the clinical risks of both hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. METHODS: We have developed a methodology to report the degree of risk which a glycaemic profile represents. Fifty diabetes professionals assigned risk values to a range of 40 blood glucose concentrations. Their responses were summarised and a generic function of glycaemic risk was derived. This function was applied to patient glucose profiles to generate an integrated risk score termed the Glycaemic Risk Assessment Diabetes Equation (GRADE). The GRADE score was then reported by use of the mean value and the relative percent contribution to the weighted risk score from the hypoglycaemic, euglycaemic, hyperglycaemic range, respectively, e.g. GRADE (hypoglycaemia%, euglycaemia%, hyperglycaemia%). RESULTS: The GRADE scores of indicative glucose profiles were as follows: continuous glucose monitoring profile non-diabetic subjects GRADE = 1.1, Type 1 diabetes continuous glucose monitoring GRADE = 8.09 (20%, 8%, 72%), Type 2 diabetes home blood glucose monitoring GRADE = 9.97 (2%, 7%, 91%). CONCLUSIONS: The GRADE score of a glucose profile summarises the degree of risk associated with a glucose profile. Values < 5 correspond to euglycaemia. The GRADE score is simple to generate from any blood glucose profile and can be used as an adjunct to HbA1c to report the degree of risk associated with glycaemic variability.
AIM: As the practice of multiple assessments of glucose concentration throughout the day increases for people with diabetes, there is a need for an assessment of glycaemic control weighted for the clinical risks of both hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. METHODS: We have developed a methodology to report the degree of risk which a glycaemic profile represents. Fifty diabetes professionals assigned risk values to a range of 40 blood glucose concentrations. Their responses were summarised and a generic function of glycaemic risk was derived. This function was applied to patientglucose profiles to generate an integrated risk score termed the Glycaemic Risk Assessment Diabetes Equation (GRADE). The GRADE score was then reported by use of the mean value and the relative percent contribution to the weighted risk score from the hypoglycaemic, euglycaemic, hyperglycaemic range, respectively, e.g. GRADE (hypoglycaemia%, euglycaemia%, hyperglycaemia%). RESULTS: The GRADE scores of indicative glucose profiles were as follows: continuous glucose monitoring profile non-diabetic subjects GRADE = 1.1, Type 1 diabetes continuous glucose monitoring GRADE = 8.09 (20%, 8%, 72%), Type 2 diabetes home blood glucose monitoring GRADE = 9.97 (2%, 7%, 91%). CONCLUSIONS: The GRADE score of a glucose profile summarises the degree of risk associated with a glucose profile. Values < 5 correspond to euglycaemia. The GRADE score is simple to generate from any blood glucose profile and can be used as an adjunct to HbA1c to report the degree of risk associated with glycaemic variability.
Authors: Renata A Rawlings; Hang Shi; Lo-Hua Yuan; William Brehm; Rodica Pop-Busui; Patrick W Nelson Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Lalantha Leelarathna; Hood Thabit; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Lia Bally; Julia K Mader; Thomas R Pieber; Carsten Benesch; Sabine Arnolds; Terri Johnson; Lutz Heinemann; Norbert Hermanns; Mark L Evans; Roman Hovorka Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2019-03-31
Authors: Alexia S Peña; Jennifer J Couper; Jennifer Harrington; Roger Gent; Jan Fairchild; Elaine Tham; Peter Baghurst Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Giada Acciaroli; Giovanni Sparacino; Liisa Hakaste; Andrea Facchinetti; Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio; Alessandro Palombit; Tiinamaija Tuomi; Rafael Gabriel; Jaime Aranda; Saturio Vega; Claudio Cobelli Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2017-06-01
Authors: Michelle Nguyen; Julia Han; Elias K Spanakis; Boris P Kovatchev; David C Klonoff Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 6.118