Literature DB >> 34984825

Understanding the clinical implications of differences between glucose management indicator and glycated haemoglobin.

Fernando Gomez-Peralta1, Pratik Choudhary2, Emmanuel Cosson3,4, Concetta Irace5, Birgit Rami-Merhar6, Alexander Seibold7.   

Abstract

Laboratory measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is the gold standard for assessing glycaemic control in people with diabetes and correlates with their risk of long-term complications. The emergence of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has highlighted limitations of HbA1c testing. HbA1c can only be reviewed infrequently and can mask the risk of hypoglycaemia or extreme glucose fluctuations. While CGM provides insights in to the risk of hypoglycaemia as well as daily fluctuations of glucose, it can also be used to calculate an estimated HbA1c that has been used as a substitute for laboratory HbA1c. However, it is evident that estimated HbA1c and HbA1c values can differ widely. The glucose management indicator (GMI), calculated exclusively from CGM data, has been proposed. It uses the same scale (% or mmol/mol) as HbA1c, but is based on short-term average glucose values, rather than long-term glucose exposure. HbA1c and GMI values differ in up to 81% of individuals by more than ±0.1% and by more than ±0.3% in 51% of cases. Here, we review the factors that define these differences, such as the time period being assessed, the variation in glycation rates and factors such as anaemia and haemoglobinopathies. Recognizing and understanding the factors that cause differences between HbA1c and GMI is an important clinical skill. In circumstances when HbA1c is elevated above GMI, further attempts at intensification of therapy based solely on the HbA1c value may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. The observed difference between GMI and HbA1c also informs the important question about the predictive ability of GMI regarding long-term complications.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HbA1c; average glucose; continuous glucose monitoring; diabetes; glucose management indicator

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34984825     DOI: 10.1111/dom.14638

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Obes Metab        ISSN: 1462-8902            Impact factor:   6.577


  4 in total

1.  HbA1c and Glucose Management Indicator Discordance Associated with Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes in Intermittent Scanning Glucose Monitoring System.

Authors:  Paul Fellinger; Karin Rodewald; Moritz Ferch; Bianca Itariu; Alexandra Kautzky-Willer; Yvonne Winhofer
Journal:  Biosensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-29

2.  Adaptation and Psychometric Evidence of the ARABIC Version of the Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (A-DSMQ).

Authors:  Nabil Kaddech; Noomen Guelmami; Tore Bonsaksen; Radhouene Doggui; Chiraz Beji; Jalila El Ati
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-21

Review 3.  Utilizing the New Glucometrics: A Practical Guide to Ambulatory Glucose Profile Interpretation.

Authors:  John Doupis; Edward S Horton
Journal:  touchREV Endocrinol       Date:  2022-06-13

4.  Comparison of MiniMed 780G system performance in users aged younger and older than 15 years: Evidence from 12 870 real-world users.

Authors:  Arcelia Arrieta; Tadej Battelino; Andrea E Scaramuzza; Julien Da Silva; Javier Castañeda; Toni L Cordero; John Shin; Ohad Cohen
Journal:  Diabetes Obes Metab       Date:  2022-05-12       Impact factor: 6.408

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.