Literature DB >> 31502876

Role of Composite Glycemic Indices: A Comparison of the Comprehensive Glucose Pentagon Across Diabetes Types and HbA1c Levels.

Suresh Rama Chandran1, Robert A Vigersky2, Andreas Thomas3, Lee Ling Lim4, Jeyakantha Ratnasingam4, Alexander Tan5, Daphne S L Gardner1.   

Abstract

Background: Complex changes of glycemia that occur in diabetes are not fully captured by any single measure. The Comprehensive Glucose Pentagon (CGP) measures multiple aspects of glycemia to generate the prognostic glycemic risk (PGR), which constitutes the relative risk of hypoglycemia combined with long-term complications. We compare the components of CGP and PGR across type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
Methods: Participants: n = 60 type 1 and n = 100 type 2 who underwent continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Mean glucose, coefficient of variation (%CV), intensity of hypoglycemia (INThypo), intensity of hyperglycemia (INThyper), time out-of-range (TOR <3.9 and >10 mmol/L), and PGR were calculated. PGR (median, interquartile ranges [IQR]) for diabetes types, and HbA1c classes were compared.
Results: While HbA1c was lower in type 1 (type 1 vs. type 2: 8.0 ± 1.6 vs. 8.6 ± 1.7, P = 0.02), CGM-derived mean glucoses were similar across both groups (P > 0.05). TOR, %CV, INThypo, and INThyper were all higher in type 1 [type 1 vs. type 2: 665 (500, 863) vs. 535 (284, 823) min/day; 39% (33, 46) vs. 29% (24, 34); 905 (205, 2951) vs. 18 (0, 349) mg/dL × min2; 42,906 (23,482, 82,120) vs. 30,166 (10,276, 57,183) mg/dL × min2, respectively, all P < 0.05]. Across each HbA1c class, the PGR remained consistently and significantly higher in type 1. While mean glucose remained the same across HbA1c classes, %CV, TOR, INThyper, and INThypo were significantly higher for type 1. Even within the same HbA1c class, the variation (IQR) of each parameter in type 1 was wider. The PGR increased across diabetes groups; type 2 on orals versus type 2 on insulin versus type 1 (PGR: 1.6 vs. 2.2 vs. 2.9, respectively, P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Composite indices such as the CGP capture significant differences in glycemia independent of HbA1c and mean glucose. The use of such indices must be explored in both the clinical and research settings.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Continuous glucose monitoring; Glucose variability; Hyperglycemia; Hypoglycemia; Type 1 diabetes; Type 2 diabetes

Year:  2019        PMID: 31502876     DOI: 10.1089/dia.2019.0277

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther        ISSN: 1520-9156            Impact factor:   6.118


  3 in total

1.  A Review of Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Composite Metrics for Glycemic Control.

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

2.  Glycemic and lipid variability for predicting complications and mortality in diabetes mellitus using machine learning.

Authors:  Sharen Lee; Jiandong Zhou; Wing Tak Wong; Tong Liu; William K K Wu; Ian Chi Kei Wong; Qingpeng Zhang; Gary Tse
Journal:  BMC Endocr Disord       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 2.763

Review 3.  Time in range: a new parameter to evaluate blood glucose control in patients with diabetes.

Authors:  Monica Andrade Lima Gabbay; Melanie Rodacki; Luis Eduardo Calliari; Andre Gustavo Daher Vianna; Marcio Krakauer; Mauro Scharf Pinto; Janice Sepúlveda Reis; Marcia Puñales; Leonardo Garcia Miranda; Ana Claudia Ramalho; Denise Reis Franco; Hermelinda Pedrosa Cordeiro Pedrosa
Journal:  Diabetol Metab Syndr       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 3.320

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.