Roland H Stimson1,2, Anna R Dover1, Shareen Forbes1,2, Mark W J Strachan3, John A McKnight3, Fraser W Gibb1,2. 1. Edinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 2. Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 3. Edinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: Discrepancy between HbA1c and glucose exposure may have significant clinical implications. We sought to assess predictors of disparity between HbA1c and flash monitoring metrics and how these relate to microvascular complications. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults with type 1 diabetes (n = 518). We assessed the relationship between clinic HbA1c and flash monitoring metrics, predictors of discrepancy between these measurements, and whether discrepancy was associated with microvascular complications. RESULTS: Actual HbA1c and estimated HbA1c were strongly correlated (r = .779, P < .001). The likelihood of having a higher actual HbA1c than estimated HbA1c was greater with increasing age (OR = 1.055 per year, P < .001) and lower in men (OR = .208, P < .001). HbA1c was significantly lower in men (58 mmol/mol [51-67]) (7.5% [6.8-8.3]) compared to women (61 mmol/mol [54-70], P = .021) (7.7% [7.1-8.6]), despite no significant differences in any flash monitoring metrics. Whereas HbA1c was not different between younger (≤39 years) and older individuals (>39 years) despite significantly higher glucose exposure, in younger people, based on multiple flash monitoring metrics. Having a lower estimated than actual HbA1c was independently associated with a lower prevalence of retinopathy (OR = .55, P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c appears to overestimate glucose exposure in women and older people with type 1 diabetes. This has potentially important clinical implications, as is hinted at by the independent relationship with retinopathy prevalence. It may also be of relevance when considering the use of HbA1c for the diagnosis of diabetes.
AIMS: Discrepancy between HbA1c and glucose exposure may have significant clinical implications. We sought to assess predictors of disparity between HbA1c and flash monitoring metrics and how these relate to microvascular complications. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults with type 1 diabetes (n = 518). We assessed the relationship between clinic HbA1c and flash monitoring metrics, predictors of discrepancy between these measurements, and whether discrepancy was associated with microvascular complications. RESULTS: Actual HbA1c and estimated HbA1c were strongly correlated (r = .779, P < .001). The likelihood of having a higher actual HbA1c than estimated HbA1c was greater with increasing age (OR = 1.055 per year, P < .001) and lower in men (OR = .208, P < .001). HbA1c was significantly lower in men (58 mmol/mol [51-67]) (7.5% [6.8-8.3]) compared to women (61 mmol/mol [54-70], P = .021) (7.7% [7.1-8.6]), despite no significant differences in any flash monitoring metrics. Whereas HbA1c was not different between younger (≤39 years) and older individuals (>39 years) despite significantly higher glucose exposure, in younger people, based on multiple flash monitoring metrics. Having a lower estimated than actual HbA1c was independently associated with a lower prevalence of retinopathy (OR = .55, P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c appears to overestimate glucose exposure in women and older people with type 1 diabetes. This has potentially important clinical implications, as is hinted at by the independent relationship with retinopathy prevalence. It may also be of relevance when considering the use of HbA1c for the diagnosis of diabetes.
Authors: Roy W Beck; Crystal G Connor; Deborah M Mullen; David M Wesley; Richard M Bergenstal Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: M Pieri; S Pignalosa; R Zenobi; C Callà; F G Martino; G Menichella; F Mancina; U Moscato; G Nocca; H Khashoggi; S Bernardini; M Dessì; N Di Daniele Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2016-10-22 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Daniel S Hsia; Neda Rasouli; Anastassios G Pittas; Christine W Lary; Anne Peters; Michael R Lewis; Sangeeta R Kashyap; Karen C Johnson; Erin S LeBlanc; Lawrence S Phillips; James M Hempe; Cyrus V Desouza Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Richard M Bergenstal; Robin L Gal; Crystal G Connor; Rose Gubitosi-Klug; Davida Kruger; Beth A Olson; Steven M Willi; Grazia Aleppo; Ruth S Weinstock; Jamie Wood; Michael Rickels; Linda A DiMeglio; Kathleen E Bethin; Santica Marcovina; Andreana Tassopoulos; Sooji Lee; Elaine Massaro; Suzan Bzdick; Brian Ichihara; Eileen Markmann; Paul McGuigan; Stephanie Woerner; Michelle Ecker; Roy W Beck Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Robert M Cohen; Robert S Franco; Paramjit K Khera; Eric P Smith; Christopher J Lindsell; Peter J Ciraolo; Mary B Palascak; Clinton H Joiner Journal: Blood Date: 2008-08-11 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Victoria Tyndall; Roland H Stimson; Nicola N Zammitt; Stuart A Ritchie; John A McKnight; Anna R Dover; Fraser W Gibb Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2019-06-09 Impact factor: 10.122
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