Jordan E Perlman1, Theodore A Gooley2, Bridget McNulty3, Jedidiah Meyers4, Irl B Hirsch5. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, San Antonio Medical Center (SAUSHEC), Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA. 5. Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
Background: There can be marked discordance between laboratory and estimated (using the glucose management indicator [GMI]) glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). This may cause errors in diabetes management. This study evaluates discordance between laboratory and CGM-estimated HbA1c (eA1C). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients with diabetes who use CGM. The patients were seen at the University of Washington (UW) Diabetes Care Center from 2012 to 2019. We used UW's Institute of Translational Health Sciences to extract eligible encounters from the electronic medical record. We required that patients use CGM and that HbA1c and sensor data be obtained fewer than 4 weeks apart. There were no exclusion criteria. We calculated HbA1c-GMI discordance for each subject and assessed for any impact of comorbidities. We defined HbA1c-GMI discordance as absolute difference between laboratory and eA1C. Results: This study included 641 separate office encounters. Ninety-one percent of patients had type 1 diabetes. Most patients had diabetes for greater than 20 years. The mean duration of CGM wear was 24.5 ± 8 days. Only 11% of patients had HbA1c-GMI discordance <0.1%, but 50% and 22% had differences ≥0.5% and ≥1%. There was increased discordance with advanced chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60). Discussion: We found substantial discordance between laboratory and eA1C in a real-world setting. Clinicians need be aware that HbA1c may not as accurately reflect mean glucose as previously appreciated.
Background: There can be marked discordance between laboratory and estimated (using the glucose management indicator [GMI]) glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). This may cause errors in diabetes management. This study evaluates discordance between laboratory and CGM-estimated HbA1c (eA1C). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients with diabetes who use CGM. The patients were seen at the University of Washington (UW) Diabetes Care Center from 2012 to 2019. We used UW's Institute of Translational Health Sciences to extract eligible encounters from the electronic medical record. We required that patients use CGM and that HbA1c and sensor data be obtained fewer than 4 weeks apart. There were no exclusion criteria. We calculated HbA1c-GMI discordance for each subject and assessed for any impact of comorbidities. We defined HbA1c-GMI discordance as absolute difference between laboratory and eA1C. Results: This study included 641 separate office encounters. Ninety-one percent of patients had type 1 diabetes. Most patients had diabetes for greater than 20 years. The mean duration of CGM wear was 24.5 ± 8 days. Only 11% of patients had HbA1c-GMI discordance <0.1%, but 50% and 22% had differences ≥0.5% and ≥1%. There was increased discordance with advanced chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60). Discussion: We found substantial discordance between laboratory and eA1C in a real-world setting. Clinicians need be aware that HbA1c may not as accurately reflect mean glucose as previously appreciated.
Authors: Frederiek E Vos; John B Schollum; Carolyn V Coulter; Patrick J Manning; Stephen B Duffull; Robert J Walker Journal: Nephrology (Carlton) Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Roy W Beck; Tonya Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Richard Bergenstal; Stacie Haller; Craig Kollman; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; Elena Toschi; Howard Wolpert; David Price Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Tonya D Riddlesworth; Craig Kollman; Zhaomian Li; Adam S Brown; Kelly L Close Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-10-23 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: Thomas Danne; Revital Nimri; Tadej Battelino; Richard M Bergenstal; Kelly L Close; J Hans DeVries; Satish Garg; Lutz Heinemann; Irl Hirsch; Stephanie A Amiel; Roy Beck; Emanuele Bosi; Bruce Buckingham; Claudio Cobelli; Eyal Dassau; Francis J Doyle; Simon Heller; Roman Hovorka; Weiping Jia; Tim Jones; Olga Kordonouri; Boris Kovatchev; Aaron Kowalski; Lori Laffel; David Maahs; Helen R Murphy; Kirsten Nørgaard; Christopher G Parkin; Eric Renard; Banshi Saboo; Mauro Scharf; William V Tamborlane; Stuart A Weinzimer; Moshe Phillip Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Adam Vegh; Daniel Vegh; Dorottya Banyai; Gabor Kammerhofer; Zita Biczo; Balazs Voros; Marta Ujpal; Juan Francisco Peña-Cardelles; Zehra Yonel; Arpad Joob-Fancsaly; Peter Hermann; Zsolt Nemeth Journal: In Vivo Date: 2022 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Paul Fellinger; Karin Rodewald; Moritz Ferch; Bianca Itariu; Alexandra Kautzky-Willer; Yvonne Winhofer Journal: Biosensors (Basel) Date: 2022-04-29
Authors: Eun Yeong Ha; Seung Min Chung; Il Rae Park; Yin Young Lee; Eun Young Choi; Jun Sung Moon Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 6.055