Klavs Würgler Hansen1, Bo Martin Bibby2. 1. Diagnostic Centre, University Research Clinic for Innovative Patient Pathways, Silkeborg Regional Hospital, Denmark. 2. Department of Public Health, Section for Biostatistics, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glucose data from intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) is a combination of scanned and imported glucose values. The present knowledge of glycemic metrics originate mostly from glucose data from real-time CGM sampled every five minutes with a lack of information derived from isCGM. METHODS: Glucose data obtained with isCGM and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) were obtained from 169 patients with type 1 diabetes. Sixty-one patients had two observations with an interval of more than three months. RESULTS: The best regression line of HbA1c against mean glucose was observed from 60 days prior to HbA1c measurement as compared to 14, 30, and 90 days. The difference between HbA1c and estimated HbA1c (=glucose management indicator [GMI]) first observed correlated with the second observation (R2 0.61, P < .001). Time in range (TIR, glucose between 3.9 and 10 mmol/L) was significantly related to GMI (R2 0.87, P < .001). A TIR of 70% corresponded to a GMI of 6.8% (95% confidence interval, 6.3-7.4). The fraction of patients with the optimal combination of TIR >70% and time below range (TBR) <4% was 3.6%. The fraction of patients with TBR>4% was four times higher for those with high glycemic variability (coefficient of variation [CV] >36%) than for those with lower CV. CONCLUSION: The individual difference between HbA1c and GMI was reproducible. High glycemic variability was related to increased TBR. A combination of TIR and TBR is suggested as a new composite quality indicator.
BACKGROUND: Glucose data from intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) is a combination of scanned and imported glucose values. The present knowledge of glycemic metrics originate mostly from glucose data from real-time CGM sampled every five minutes with a lack of information derived from isCGM. METHODS: Glucose data obtained with isCGM and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) were obtained from 169 patients with type 1 diabetes. Sixty-one patients had two observations with an interval of more than three months. RESULTS: The best regression line of HbA1c against mean glucose was observed from 60 days prior to HbA1c measurement as compared to 14, 30, and 90 days. The difference between HbA1c and estimated HbA1c (=glucose management indicator [GMI]) first observed correlated with the second observation (R2 0.61, P < .001). Time in range (TIR, glucose between 3.9 and 10 mmol/L) was significantly related to GMI (R2 0.87, P < .001). A TIR of 70% corresponded to a GMI of 6.8% (95% confidence interval, 6.3-7.4). The fraction of patients with the optimal combination of TIR >70% and time below range (TBR) <4% was 3.6%. The fraction of patients with TBR>4% was four times higher for those with high glycemic variability (coefficient of variation [CV] >36%) than for those with lower CV. CONCLUSION: The individual difference between HbA1c and GMI was reproducible. High glycemic variability was related to increased TBR. A combination of TIR and TBR is suggested as a new composite quality indicator.
Entities:
Keywords:
glycemic variability; hemoglobin A1c; intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring; time in range; type 1 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: Lalantha Leelarathna; Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Hood Thabit; Roman Hovorka Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sara Charleer; Christophe De Block; Liesbeth Van Huffel; Ben Broos; Steffen Fieuws; Frank Nobels; Chantal Mathieu; Pieter Gillard Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 19.112
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: Elena Toschi; Christine Slyne; Kayla Sifre; Rachel O'Donnell; Jordan Greenberg; Astrid Atakov-Castillo; Sam Carl; Medha Munshi Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-05-27 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: Paul Fellinger; Karin Rodewald; Moritz Ferch; Bianca Itariu; Alexandra Kautzky-Willer; Yvonne Winhofer Journal: Biosensors (Basel) Date: 2022-04-29