Literature DB >> 30848545

Beyond HbA1c : using continuous glucose monitoring metrics to enhance interpretation of treatment effect and improve clinical decision-making.

S A Brown1,2, A Basu1,2, B P Kovatchev2.   

Abstract

Assessment of glycaemic outcomes in the management of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes has been revolutionized in the past decade with the increasing availability of accurate, user-friendly continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). This advancement has brought a need for new techniques to appropriately analyse and understand the voluminous and complex CGM data for application in research-related goals and clinical guidance for individuals. Traditionally, HbA1c was established using the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and other trials as the ultimate measure of glycaemic control in terms of efficacy and, by default, risk of microvascular complications of diabetes. However, it is acknowledged that HbA1c alone is inadequate at describing an individual's daily glycaemic variation and risks for hypo- and hyperglycaemia, and it does not provide the guidance needed to decrease those risks. CGM data provide means by which to characterize an individual's daily glycaemic excursions on a different time scale measured in minutes rather than months. As a consequence, clinical reports, such as the ambulatory glucose profile, increasingly include summary statistics related to averages (mean glucose, time in range) as well as markers related to glycaemic variability (coefficient of variation, standard deviation). However, there is a need to translate those metrics into specific risks that can be addressed in an actionable plan by individuals with diabetes and providers. This review presents several clinical scenarios of glycaemic outcomes from CGM data that can be analysed to describe glycaemic variability and its attendant risks of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia, moving towards relevant interpretation of the complex CGM data streams.
© 2019 Diabetes UK.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30848545     DOI: 10.1111/dme.13944

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabet Med        ISSN: 0742-3071            Impact factor:   4.359


  3 in total

1.  Impacts of glycemic variability on the relationship between glucose management indicator from iPro2 and laboratory hemoglobin A1c in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Hongxia Liu; Daizhi Yang; Hongrong Deng; Wen Xu; Jing Lv; Yongwen Zhou; Sihui Luo; Xueying Zheng; Hua Liang; Bin Yao; Liling Qiu; Funeng Wang; Fang Liu; Jinhua Yan; Jianping Weng
Journal:  Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 3.565

Review 2.  Use of continuous glucose monitoring trend arrows in the younger population with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Nancy Elbarbary; Othmar Moser; Saif Al Yaarubi; Hussain Alsaffar; Adnan Al Shaikh; Ramzi A Ajjan; Asma Deeb
Journal:  Diab Vasc Dis Res       Date:  2021 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.291

3.  Level of Agreement and Correlation Between the Estimated Hemoglobin A1c Results Derived by Continuous or Conventional Glucose Monitoring Systems Compared with the Point-of-Care or Laboratory-Based Measurements: An Observational Study.

Authors:  Ayman A Al Hayek; Samia H Sobki; Abdulghani H Al-Saeed; Wael M Alzahrani; Mohamed A Al Dawish
Journal:  Diabetes Ther       Date:  2022-03-20       Impact factor: 3.595

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.