Age and Red Blood Cell Parameters Mainly Explain the Differences Between HbA1c and Glycemic Management Indicator Among Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Using Intermittent Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

IF 4.1 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-11 DOI:10.1177/19322968231191544
Pablo Azcoitia, Raquel Rodríguez-Castellano, Pedro Saavedra, María P Alberiche, Dunia Marrero, Ana M Wägner, Antonio Ojeda, Mauro Boronat
{"title":"Age and Red Blood Cell Parameters Mainly Explain the Differences Between HbA1c and Glycemic Management Indicator Among Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Using Intermittent Continuous Glucose Monitoring.","authors":"Pablo Azcoitia, Raquel Rodríguez-Castellano, Pedro Saavedra, María P Alberiche, Dunia Marrero, Ana M Wägner, Antonio Ojeda, Mauro Boronat","doi":"10.1177/19322968231191544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is the gold standard to assess glycemic control in patients with diabetes. Glucose management indicator (GMI), a metric generated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), has been proposed as an alternative to HbA1c, but the two values may differ, complicating clinical decision-making. This study aimed to identify the factors that may explain the discrepancy between them.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Subjects were patients with type 1 diabetes, with one or more HbA1c measurements after starting the use of the Freestyle Libre 2 intermittent CGM, who shared their data with the center on the Libreview platform. The 14-day glucometric reports were retrieved, with the end date coinciding with the date of each HbA1c measurement, and those with sensor use ≥70% were selected. Clinical data prior to the start of CGM use, glucometric data from each report, and other simultaneous laboratory measurements with HbA1c were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 646 HbA1c values and their corresponding glucometric reports were obtained from 339 patients. The absolute difference between HbA1c and GMI was <0.3% in only 38.7% of cases. Univariate analysis showed that the HbA1c-GMI value was associated with age, diabetes duration, estimated glomerular filtration rate, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), red cell distribution width (RDW), and time with glucose between 180 and 250 mg/dL. In a multilevel model, only age and RDW, positively, and MCV, negatively, were correlated to HbA1c-GMI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The difference between HbA1c and GMI is clinically relevant in a high percentage of cases. Age and easily accessible hematological parameters (MCV and RDW) can help to interpret these differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":15475,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology","volume":" ","pages":"1370-1376"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11529079/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968231191544","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is the gold standard to assess glycemic control in patients with diabetes. Glucose management indicator (GMI), a metric generated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), has been proposed as an alternative to HbA1c, but the two values may differ, complicating clinical decision-making. This study aimed to identify the factors that may explain the discrepancy between them.

Methods: Subjects were patients with type 1 diabetes, with one or more HbA1c measurements after starting the use of the Freestyle Libre 2 intermittent CGM, who shared their data with the center on the Libreview platform. The 14-day glucometric reports were retrieved, with the end date coinciding with the date of each HbA1c measurement, and those with sensor use ≥70% were selected. Clinical data prior to the start of CGM use, glucometric data from each report, and other simultaneous laboratory measurements with HbA1c were collected.

Results: A total of 646 HbA1c values and their corresponding glucometric reports were obtained from 339 patients. The absolute difference between HbA1c and GMI was <0.3% in only 38.7% of cases. Univariate analysis showed that the HbA1c-GMI value was associated with age, diabetes duration, estimated glomerular filtration rate, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), red cell distribution width (RDW), and time with glucose between 180 and 250 mg/dL. In a multilevel model, only age and RDW, positively, and MCV, negatively, were correlated to HbA1c-GMI.

Conclusion: The difference between HbA1c and GMI is clinically relevant in a high percentage of cases. Age and easily accessible hematological parameters (MCV and RDW) can help to interpret these differences.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
年龄和红细胞参数是使用间歇性连续血糖监测的 1 型糖尿病患者 HbA1c 和血糖管理指标差异的主要原因。
背景:糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)是评估糖尿病患者血糖控制情况的黄金标准。葡萄糖管理指标(GMI)是由连续血糖监测仪(CGM)生成的一种指标,已被提议作为 HbA1c 的替代指标,但这两个值可能存在差异,从而使临床决策变得复杂。本研究旨在找出可能导致两者差异的因素:研究对象为 1 型糖尿病患者,他们在开始使用 Freestyle Libre 2 间歇式 CGM 后进行了一次或多次 HbA1c 测量,并在 Libreview 平台上与中心共享数据。我们检索了 14 天的血糖报告,其结束日期与每次 HbA1c 测量的日期一致,并选择了传感器使用率≥ 70% 的患者。收集了开始使用 CGM 之前的临床数据、每份报告中的血糖测量数据以及其他与 HbA1c 同时进行的实验室测量数据:结果:共获得 339 名患者的 646 个 HbA1c 值及其相应的血糖报告。HbA1c 和 GMI 之间的绝对差值为 结论:HbA1c 和 GMI 之间的差值为 0.5%:在很大比例的病例中,HbA1c 和 GMI 之间的差异与临床相关。年龄和易于获得的血液学参数(MCV 和 RDW)有助于解释这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology Medicine-Internal Medicine
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
12.00%
发文量
148
期刊介绍: The Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (JDST) is a bi-monthly, peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Diabetes Technology Society. JDST covers scientific and clinical aspects of diabetes technology including glucose monitoring, insulin and metabolic peptide delivery, the artificial pancreas, digital health, precision medicine, social media, cybersecurity, software for modeling, physiologic monitoring, technology for managing obesity, and diagnostic tests of glycation. The journal also covers the development and use of mobile applications and wireless communication, as well as bioengineered tools such as MEMS, new biomaterials, and nanotechnology to develop new sensors. Articles in JDST cover both basic research and clinical applications of technologies being developed to help people with diabetes.
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence to Diagnose Complications of Diabetes. Is Continuous Glucose Monitoring Feasible in Tribal India? Navigating the Benefits and Overcoming the Challenges. Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Derived Glycemic Phenotyping of Childhood Hypoglycemia due to Hyperinsulinism: A Year-long Prospective Nationwide Observational Study. Diabetes Technology Use in Special Populations: A Narrative Review of Psychosocial Factors. Addressing Inequity in Continuous Glucose Monitoring Access: Leveraging the Hospital in the Continuum of Care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1