BACKGROUND: The proportion of diabetic patients undergoing haemodialysis is rapidly increasing. Glucose control among such patients is difficult to assess. We aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) in type 2 diabetic patients on chronic haemodialysis. METHODS: We used a 4-day CGMS to monitor glucose levels in 19 haemodialysed type 2 diabetic patients (HD T2) including 2 days with and 2 days without dialysis session, and 39 non-HD T2 in a double-centre study. RESULTS: The glucose concentration according to the glucose meter and CGMS were correlated in HD T2 patients (r = 0.90, P < 0.0001) and in non-HD T2 patients (r = 0.81, P < 0.0001). The relative absolute difference (RAD) between glucose determined by a glucose meter and glucose determined by the CGMS did not differ between HD T2 and non-HD T2 patients (9.2 +/- 10.5 vs. 8.2 +/- 7.6%; P = 0.165). Glycated haemoglobin (A1c) and mean glucose concentration were strongly correlated in non-HD T2 patients (r = 0.71; P < 0.0001) but weakly correlated in HD T2 patients (r = 0.47; P = 0.042). Fructosamine was correlated with the mean glucose concentration in non-HD T2 (r = 0.67; P < 0.0001) but not in HD T2 patients (r = 0.04; P = 0.88). CONCLUSION: CGM is a validated marker of glycaemic control in HD diabetic patients. This tool showed that A1c and fructosamine, despite being good markers of glycaemic control in non-HD diabetic patients, are of poor value in HD diabetic patients.
BACKGROUND: The proportion of diabeticpatients undergoing haemodialysis is rapidly increasing. Glucose control among such patients is difficult to assess. We aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) in type 2 diabeticpatients on chronic haemodialysis. METHODS: We used a 4-day CGMS to monitor glucose levels in 19 haemodialysed type 2 diabeticpatients (HD T2) including 2 days with and 2 days without dialysis session, and 39 non-HD T2 in a double-centre study. RESULTS: The glucose concentration according to the glucose meter and CGMS were correlated in HD T2 patients (r = 0.90, P < 0.0001) and in non-HD T2 patients (r = 0.81, P < 0.0001). The relative absolute difference (RAD) between glucose determined by a glucose meter and glucose determined by the CGMS did not differ between HD T2 and non-HD T2 patients (9.2 +/- 10.5 vs. 8.2 +/- 7.6%; P = 0.165). Glycated haemoglobin (A1c) and mean glucose concentration were strongly correlated in non-HD T2 patients (r = 0.71; P < 0.0001) but weakly correlated in HD T2 patients (r = 0.47; P = 0.042). Fructosamine was correlated with the mean glucose concentration in non-HD T2 (r = 0.67; P < 0.0001) but not in HD T2 patients (r = 0.04; P = 0.88). CONCLUSION: CGM is a validated marker of glycaemic control in HD diabeticpatients. This tool showed that A1c and fructosamine, despite being good markers of glycaemic control in non-HD diabeticpatients, are of poor value in HD diabeticpatients.
Authors: Iram Ahmad; Leila R Zelnick; Zona Batacchi; Nicole Robinson; Ashveena Dighe; Jo-Anne E Manski-Nankervis; John Furler; David N O'Neal; Randie Little; Dace Trence; Irl B Hirsch; Nisha Bansal; Ian H de Boer Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Yijuan Sun; Maria-Eleni Roumelioti; Kavitha Ganta; Robert H Glew; James Gibb; Darlene Vigil; Catherine Do; Karen S Servilla; Brent Wagner; Jonathan Owen; Mark Rohrscheib; Richard I Dorin; Glen H Murata; Antonios H Tzamaloukas Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2020-01-18 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Rodolfo J Galindo; Roy W Beck; Maria F Scioscia; Guillermo E Umpierrez; Katherine R Tuttle Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: Maurizio Gallieni; Cristina De Salvo; Maria Elena Lunati; Antonio Rossi; Francesca D'Addio; Ida Pastore; Gianmarco Sabiu; Roberta Miglio; Gian Vincenzo Zuccotti; Paolo Fiorina Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 4.280