Chiara Fabris1, Lutz Heinemann2, Roy Beck3, Claudio Cobelli4, Boris Kovatchev1. 1. Center for Diabetes Technology, Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 2. Science Consulting in Diabetes GmbH, Neuss, Germany. 3. Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida, USA. 4. Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Abstract
Objective: To bridge the gap between laboratory-measured hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived time in target range (TIR), introducing TIR-driven estimated A1c (eA1c). Methods: Data from Protocol 1 (training data set) and Protocol 3 (testing data set) of the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial were used. Training data included 3 months of CGM recordings from 125 individuals with type 1 diabetes, and HbA1c at 3 months; testing data included 9 months of CGM recordings from 168 individuals, and HbA1c at 3, 6, and 9 months. Hemoglobin glycation was modeled by a first-order differential equation driven by TIR. Three model parameters were estimated in the training data set and fixed thereafter. A fourth parameter was estimated in the testing data set, to individualize the model by calibration with month 3 HbA1c. The accuracy of eA1c was assessed on months 6 and 9 HbA1c. Results: eA1c was tracked for each individual in the testing data set for 6 months after calibration. Mean absolute differences between HbA1c and eA1c 3- and 6-month postcalibration were 0.25% and 0.24%; Pearson's correlation coefficients were 0.93 and 0.93; percentages of eA1c within 10% from reference HbA1c were 97.6% and 96.3%, respectively. Conclusions: HbA1c and TIR are reflections of the same underlying process of glycemic fluctuation. Using a model individualized with one HbA1c measurement, TIR provides an accurate approximation of HbA1c for at least 6 months, reflecting blood glucose fluctuations and nonglycemic biological factors. Thus, eA1c is an intermediate metric that mathematically adjusts a CGM-based assessment of glycemic control to individual glycation rates.
Objective: To bridge the gap between laboratory-measured hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived time in target range (TIR), introducing TIR-driven estimated A1c (eA1c). Methods: Data from Protocol 1 (training data set) and Protocol 3 (testing data set) of the International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial were used. Training data included 3 months of CGM recordings from 125 individuals with type 1 diabetes, and HbA1c at 3 months; testing data included 9 months of CGM recordings from 168 individuals, and HbA1c at 3, 6, and 9 months. Hemoglobin glycation was modeled by a first-order differential equation driven by TIR. Three model parameters were estimated in the training data set and fixed thereafter. A fourth parameter was estimated in the testing data set, to individualize the model by calibration with month 3 HbA1c. The accuracy of eA1c was assessed on months 6 and 9 HbA1c. Results: eA1c was tracked for each individual in the testing data set for 6 months after calibration. Mean absolute differences between HbA1c and eA1c 3- and 6-month postcalibration were 0.25% and 0.24%; Pearson's correlation coefficients were 0.93 and 0.93; percentages of eA1c within 10% from reference HbA1c were 97.6% and 96.3%, respectively. Conclusions: HbA1c and TIR are reflections of the same underlying process of glycemic fluctuation. Using a model individualized with one HbA1c measurement, TIR provides an accurate approximation of HbA1c for at least 6 months, reflecting blood glucose fluctuations and nonglycemic biological factors. Thus, eA1c is an intermediate metric that mathematically adjusts a CGM-based assessment of glycemic control to individual glycation rates.
Entities:
Keywords:
Continuous glucose monitoring; Estimated A1c; Hemoglobin A1c; Hemoglobin clearance; Hemoglobin glycation; International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial; Time in range
Authors: Lalantha Leelarathna; Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Hood Thabit; Roman Hovorka Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 19.112
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: 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: Richard M Bergenstal; Roy W Beck; Kelly L Close; George Grunberger; David B Sacks; Aaron Kowalski; Adam S Brown; Lutz Heinemann; Grazia Aleppo; Donna B Ryan; Tonya D Riddlesworth; William T Cefalu Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Nicole Y Xu; Kevin T Nguyen; Ashley Y DuBord; John Pickup; Jennifer L Sherr; Hazhir Teymourian; Eda Cengiz; Barry H Ginsberg; Claudio Cobelli; David Ahn; Riccardo Bellazzi; B Wayne Bequette; Laura Gandrud Pickett; Linda Parks; Elias K Spanakis; Umesh Masharani; Halis K Akturk; John S Melish; Sarah Kim; Gu Eon Kang; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Trisha Shang; Jennifer Y Zhang; B Wayne Bequette; Jennifer K Raymond; Gerard Coté; Jennifer L Sherr; Jessica Castle; John Pickup; Yarmela Pavlovic; Juan Espinoza; Laurel H Messer; Tim Heise; Carlos E Mendez; Sarah Kim; Barry H Ginsberg; Umesh Masharani; Rodolfo J Galindo; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2021-07
Authors: Joshua Grossman; Andrew Ward; Jamie L Crandell; Priya Prahalad; David M Maahs; David Scheinker Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 3.219