Stuart A Chalew1, James M Hempe, Robert McCarter. 1. Pediatric Endocrinology/Diabetes and Research Institute for Children, Children's Hospital of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, USA. schale@lsuhsc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is highly correlated with mean blood glucose (MBG) levels and widely used in assessment of diabetes therapy. It has been proposed to report HbA1c in terms of an estimated average glucose (eAG) derived from the population regression of MBG on HbA1c. Pertinent to the clinical utility of eAG would be the degree of agreement between eAG and MBG estimated from multiple sampled glucose measurements over time. METHODS: We examined agreement between eAG and MBG by Bland-Altman analysis from two different populations of type 1 diabetes patients: 150 children at our clinic in New Orleans and publicly available data from 1440 participants in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). In New Orleans, MBG was derived from the mean of each patient's self-monitored glucose records over the 3 months before the HbA1c was obtained at the patient's clinic visit. Hemoglobin A1c was traceable to the DCCT. In DCCT participants, MBG was calculated from the patient's seven-sample glucose profile set submitted during each quarterly visit. Estimated average glucose was calculated from each individual's HbA1c using a previously reported regression equation of MBG versus HbA1c, eAG = (HbA1c * 28.7) - 47.7, derived from a continuous glucose monitoring protocol over a 12-week period. RESULTS: The analysis showed that there is frequent and clinically significant disagreement between MBG and eAG. Estimated average glucose over or under estimated MBG by 28.7 mg/dl or greater (HbA1c difference of 1% or greater) in approximately 33% of patients from both populations. The eAG overestimation of MBG was highest at lower MBG. The difference between eAG and MBG was skewed upward with increasing mean of eAG and MBG in the DCCT. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent discordance between eAG and MBG in clinical practice will likely be confusing to patients and clinicians. In patients where eAG overestimates MBG, intensive management based on eAG alone will likely lead to greater frequency of hypoglycemic episodes. To overcome these limitations of eAG, a customized assessment of HbA1c with respect to a patient's MBG should be performed using directly monitored patient glucose levels over time. 2009 Diabetes Technology Society.
BACKGROUND: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is highly correlated with mean blood glucose (MBG) levels and widely used in assessment of diabetes therapy. It has been proposed to report HbA1c in terms of an estimated average glucose (eAG) derived from the population regression of MBG on HbA1c. Pertinent to the clinical utility of eAG would be the degree of agreement between eAG and MBG estimated from multiple sampled glucose measurements over time. METHODS: We examined agreement between eAG and MBG by Bland-Altman analysis from two different populations of type 1 diabetespatients: 150 children at our clinic in New Orleans and publicly available data from 1440 participants in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). In New Orleans, MBG was derived from the mean of each patient's self-monitored glucose records over the 3 months before the HbA1c was obtained at the patient's clinic visit. Hemoglobin A1c was traceable to the DCCT. In DCCTparticipants, MBG was calculated from the patient's seven-sample glucose profile set submitted during each quarterly visit. Estimated average glucose was calculated from each individual's HbA1c using a previously reported regression equation of MBG versus HbA1c, eAG = (HbA1c * 28.7) - 47.7, derived from a continuous glucose monitoring protocol over a 12-week period. RESULTS: The analysis showed that there is frequent and clinically significant disagreement between MBG and eAG. Estimated average glucose over or under estimated MBG by 28.7 mg/dl or greater (HbA1c difference of 1% or greater) in approximately 33% of patients from both populations. The eAG overestimation of MBG was highest at lower MBG. The difference between eAG and MBG was skewed upward with increasing mean of eAG and MBG in the DCCT. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent discordance between eAG and MBG in clinical practice will likely be confusing to patients and clinicians. In patients where eAG overestimates MBG, intensive management based on eAG alone will likely lead to greater frequency of hypoglycemic episodes. To overcome these limitations of eAG, a customized assessment of HbA1c with respect to a patient's MBG should be performed using directly monitored patientglucose levels over time. 2009 Diabetes Technology Society.
Authors: Janet Silverstein; Georgeanna Klingensmith; Kenneth Copeland; Leslie Plotnick; Francine Kaufman; Lori Laffel; Larry Deeb; Margaret Grey; Barbara Anderson; Lea Ann Holzmeister; Nathaniel Clark Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Anushka Patel; Stephen MacMahon; John Chalmers; Bruce Neal; Laurent Billot; Mark Woodward; Michel Marre; Mark Cooper; Paul Glasziou; Diederick Grobbee; Pavel Hamet; Stephen Harrap; Simon Heller; Lisheng Liu; Giuseppe Mancia; Carl Erik Mogensen; Changyu Pan; Neil Poulter; Anthony Rodgers; Bryan Williams; Severine Bompoint; Bastiaan E de Galan; Rohina Joshi; Florence Travert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William Duckworth; Carlos Abraira; Thomas Moritz; Domenic Reda; Nicholas Emanuele; Peter D Reaven; Franklin J Zieve; Jennifer Marks; Stephen N Davis; Rodney Hayward; Stuart R Warren; Steven Goldman; Madeline McCarren; Mary Ellen Vitek; William G Henderson; Grant D Huang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hertzel C Gerstein; Michael E Miller; Robert P Byington; David C Goff; J Thomas Bigger; John B Buse; William C Cushman; Saul Genuth; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; Richard H Grimm; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Denise G Simons-Morton; William T Friedewald Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William H Herman; Yong Ma; Gabriel Uwaifo; Steven Haffner; Steven E Kahn; Edward S Horton; John M Lachin; Maria G Montez; Tina Brenneman; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-05-29 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Lydie N Pani; Leslie Korenda; James B Meigs; Cynthia Driver; Shadi Chamany; Caroline S Fox; Lisa Sullivan; Ralph B D'Agostino; David M Nathan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: David M Nathan; Judith Kuenen; Rikke Borg; Hui Zheng; David Schoenfeld; Robert J Heine Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-06-07 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Guillaume Paré; Daniel I Chasman; Alexander N Parker; David M Nathan; Joseph P Miletich; Robert Y Zee; Paul M Ridker Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2008-12-19 Impact factor: 5.917