Vanessa Moscardó1, Pau Herrero2, Monika Reddy3, Nathan R Hill4, Pantelis Georgiou2, Nick Oliver3. 1. Instituto Universitario de Automática e Informática Industrial, Universitat Politècnica de València, València, Spain. 2. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. 3. Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. 4. Harris Manchester College, Mansfield Road, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Objective: Increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data has created an array of glucose metrics for glucose variability, temporal patterns, and times in ranges. However, a gold standard metric has not been defined. We assess the performance of multiple glucose metrics to determine their ability to detect intra- and interperson variability to determine a set of recommended metrics. Methods: The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation data set, a randomized controlled study of CGM and self-monitored blood glucose conducted in children and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), was used. To determine the ability of the evaluated glycemic metrics to discriminate between different subjects and attenuate the effect of within-subject variation, the discriminant ratio was calculated and compared for each metric. Then, the findings were confirmed using data from two other recent randomized clinical trials. Results: Mean absolute glucose (MAG) has the highest discriminant ratio value (2.98 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.64-3.67]). In addition, low blood glucose index and index of glycemic control performed well (1.93 [95% CI 1.15-3.44] and 1.92 [95% CI 1.27-2.93], respectively). For percentage times in glucose target ranges, the optimal discriminator was percentage time in glucose target 70-180 mg/dL. Conclusions: MAG is the optimal index to differentiate glucose variability in people with T1D, and may be a complementary therapeutic monitoring tool in addition to glycated hemoglobin and a measure of hypoglycemia. Percentage time in glucose target 70-180 mg/dL is the optimal percentage time in range to report.
Objective: Increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data has created an array of glucose metrics for glucose variability, temporal patterns, and times in ranges. However, a gold standard metric has not been defined. We assess the performance of multiple glucose metrics to determine their ability to detect intra- and interperson variability to determine a set of recommended metrics. Methods: The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation data set, a randomized controlled study of CGM and self-monitored blood glucose conducted in children and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), was used. To determine the ability of the evaluated glycemic metrics to discriminate between different subjects and attenuate the effect of within-subject variation, the discriminant ratio was calculated and compared for each metric. Then, the findings were confirmed using data from two other recent randomized clinical trials. Results: Mean absolute glucose (MAG) has the highest discriminant ratio value (2.98 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.64-3.67]). In addition, low blood glucose index and index of glycemic control performed well (1.93 [95% CI 1.15-3.44] and 1.92 [95% CI 1.27-2.93], respectively). For percentage times in glucose target ranges, the optimal discriminator was percentage time in glucose target 70-180 mg/dL. Conclusions: MAG is the optimal index to differentiate glucose variability in people with T1D, and may be a complementary therapeutic monitoring tool in addition to glycated hemoglobin and a measure of hypoglycemia. Percentage time in glucose target 70-180 mg/dL is the optimal percentage time in range to report.
Entities:
Keywords:
Discriminant ratio; Glucose variability; Type 1 diabetes; Variability metrics
Authors: Nathan R Hill; Nick S Oliver; Pratik Choudhary; Jonathan C Levy; Peter Hindmarsh; David R Matthews Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Tadej Battelino; Thomas Danne; Richard M Bergenstal; Stephanie A Amiel; Roy Beck; Torben Biester; Emanuele Bosi; Bruce A Buckingham; William T Cefalu; Kelly L Close; Claudio Cobelli; Eyal Dassau; J Hans DeVries; Kim C Donaghue; Klemen Dovc; Francis J Doyle; Satish Garg; George Grunberger; Simon Heller; Lutz Heinemann; Irl B Hirsch; Roman Hovorka; Weiping Jia; Olga Kordonouri; Boris Kovatchev; Aaron Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Brian Levine; Alexander Mayorov; Chantal Mathieu; Helen R Murphy; Revital Nimri; Kirsten Nørgaard; Christopher G Parkin; Eric Renard; David Rodbard; Banshi Saboo; Desmond Schatz; Keaton Stoner; Tatsuiko Urakami; Stuart A Weinzimer; Moshe Phillip Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Evelyn Annegret Huhn; Tina Linder; Daniel Eppel; Karen Weißhaupt; Christine Klapp; Karen Schellong; Wolfgang Henrich; Gülen Yerlikaya-Schatten; Ingo Rosicky; Peter Husslein; Kinga Chalubinski; Martina Mittlböck; Petra Rust; Irene Hoesli; Bettina Winzeler; Johan Jendle; T Fehm; Andrea Icks; Markus Vomhof; Gregory Gordon Greiner; Julia Szendrödi; Michael Roden; Andrea Tura; Christian S Göbl Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 2.692