BACKGROUND: The mean absolute glucose (MAG) change, originally developed to assess associations between glycemic variability (GV) and intensive care unit mortality, has not yet been validated. We used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) datasets from patients with diabetes to assess the validity of MAG and to quantify associations with established measures of GV. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Validation was based on retrospective analysis of 72-h CGM data collected during clinical studies involving 815 outpatients (48 with type 1 diabetes and 767 with type 2 diabetes). Measures of GV included SD around the sensor glucose, interquartile range, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions, and the continuous overlapping net glycemic action indices at 1, 3, and 6 h. MAG was calculated using 5-min, 60-min, and seven-point glucose profile sampling intervals; correlations among the variability measures and effects of sampling frequency were assessed. RESULTS: Strong linear correlations between MAG change and classical markers of GV were documented (r=0.587-0.809, P<0.001 for all), whereas correlations with both glycosylated hemoglobin and mean sensor glucose were found to be weak (r=0.246 and r=0.378, respectively). The magnitude of MAG change decreased in a nonlinear fashion (P<0.001), as intervals between glucose measurements increased. MAG change, as calculated from 5-min sensor glucose readings, did reflect relatively small differences in glucose fluctuations associated with glycemic treatment modality. CONCLUSIONS: MAG change represents a valid GV index if closely spaced sensor glucose measurements are used, but does not provide any advantage over variability indices already used for assessing diabetes control.
BACKGROUND: The mean absolute glucose (MAG) change, originally developed to assess associations between glycemic variability (GV) and intensive care unit mortality, has not yet been validated. We used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) datasets from patients with diabetes to assess the validity of MAG and to quantify associations with established measures of GV. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Validation was based on retrospective analysis of 72-h CGM data collected during clinical studies involving 815 outpatients (48 with type 1 diabetes and 767 with type 2 diabetes). Measures of GV included SD around the sensor glucose, interquartile range, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions, and the continuous overlapping net glycemic action indices at 1, 3, and 6 h. MAG was calculated using 5-min, 60-min, and seven-point glucose profile sampling intervals; correlations among the variability measures and effects of sampling frequency were assessed. RESULTS: Strong linear correlations between MAG change and classical markers of GV were documented (r=0.587-0.809, P<0.001 for all), whereas correlations with both glycosylated hemoglobin and mean sensor glucose were found to be weak (r=0.246 and r=0.378, respectively). The magnitude of MAG change decreased in a nonlinear fashion (P<0.001), as intervals between glucose measurements increased. MAG change, as calculated from 5-min sensor glucose readings, did reflect relatively small differences in glucose fluctuations associated with glycemic treatment modality. CONCLUSIONS: MAG change represents a valid GV index if closely spaced sensor glucose measurements are used, but does not provide any advantage over variability indices already used for assessing diabetes control.
Authors: Thomas A Peyser; Andrew K Balo; Bruce A Buckingham; Irl B Hirsch; Arturo Garcia Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Abimbola A Akintola; Raymond Noordam; Steffy W Jansen; Anton J de Craen; Bart E Ballieux; Christa M Cobbaert; Simon P Mooijaart; Hanno Pijl; Rudi G Westendorp; Diana van Heemst Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 3.240