Jared G. Friedman , Eric P. Smith , Sanjana S. Awasty , Morgan Behan , Matthew T. Genco , Hannah Hempel , Sabih Jafri , Roman Jandarov , Tara Nagaraj , Robert S. Franco , Robert M. Cohen
{"title":"当 HbA1c 和其他血糖测量指标不一致时,进行初级保健糖尿病评估。","authors":"Jared G. Friedman , Eric P. Smith , Sanjana S. Awasty , Morgan Behan , Matthew T. Genco , Hannah Hempel , Sabih Jafri , Roman Jandarov , Tara Nagaraj , Robert S. Franco , Robert M. Cohen","doi":"10.1016/j.pcd.2023.12.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><p><span>Although diabetes management decisions in primary care are typically based largely on </span>HbA1c<span><span>, mismatches between HbA1c<span> and other measures of glycemia that are increasingly more available present challenges to optimal management. This study aimed to assess a systematic approach to identify the frequency of mismatches of potential </span></span>clinical significance<span> amongst various measures of glycemia in a primary care setting.</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>Following screening to exclude conditions known to affect HbA1c interpretation, HbA1c, and fructosamine were obtained and repeated after ∼90 days on 53 adults with </span>prediabetes<span> or type 2 diabetes<span>. A subset of 13 participants with repeat labs wore continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 10 days.</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>As expected, HbA1c and fructosamine only modestly correlated (initial R</span><sup>2</sup> = 0.768/repeat R<sup>2</sup> = 0.655). The HbA1c/fructosamine mismatch frequency of ± 0.5% (using the following regression HbA1c = 0.015 *fructosamine + 2.994 calculated from the initial sample) was 27.0%. Of the 13 participants with CGM data, HbA1c and CGM-based Glucose Management Indicator correlated at R<sup>2</sup> = 0.786 with a mismatch frequency of ± 0.5% at 46.2% compared to a HbA1c/fructosamine mismatch frequency of ± 0.5% at 30.8%.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p><span>HbA1c is frequently mismatched with fructosamine and CGM data. As each of the measures has strengths and </span>weaknesses, the utilization of multiple different measures of glycemia may be informative for diabetes assessment in the clinical setting.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48997,"journal":{"name":"Primary Care Diabetes","volume":"18 2","pages":"Pages 151-156"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Primary care diabetes assessment when HbA1c and other measures of glycemia disagree\",\"authors\":\"Jared G. Friedman , Eric P. Smith , Sanjana S. Awasty , Morgan Behan , Matthew T. Genco , Hannah Hempel , Sabih Jafri , Roman Jandarov , Tara Nagaraj , Robert S. Franco , Robert M. Cohen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pcd.2023.12.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aims</h3><p><span>Although diabetes management decisions in primary care are typically based largely on </span>HbA1c<span><span>, mismatches between HbA1c<span> and other measures of glycemia that are increasingly more available present challenges to optimal management. This study aimed to assess a systematic approach to identify the frequency of mismatches of potential </span></span>clinical significance<span> amongst various measures of glycemia in a primary care setting.</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>Following screening to exclude conditions known to affect HbA1c interpretation, HbA1c, and fructosamine were obtained and repeated after ∼90 days on 53 adults with </span>prediabetes<span> or type 2 diabetes<span>. A subset of 13 participants with repeat labs wore continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 10 days.</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>As expected, HbA1c and fructosamine only modestly correlated (initial R</span><sup>2</sup> = 0.768/repeat R<sup>2</sup> = 0.655). The HbA1c/fructosamine mismatch frequency of ± 0.5% (using the following regression HbA1c = 0.015 *fructosamine + 2.994 calculated from the initial sample) was 27.0%. Of the 13 participants with CGM data, HbA1c and CGM-based Glucose Management Indicator correlated at R<sup>2</sup> = 0.786 with a mismatch frequency of ± 0.5% at 46.2% compared to a HbA1c/fructosamine mismatch frequency of ± 0.5% at 30.8%.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p><span>HbA1c is frequently mismatched with fructosamine and CGM data. As each of the measures has strengths and </span>weaknesses, the utilization of multiple different measures of glycemia may be informative for diabetes assessment in the clinical setting.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Primary Care Diabetes\",\"volume\":\"18 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 151-156\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Primary Care Diabetes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751991823002231\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary Care Diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751991823002231","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Primary care diabetes assessment when HbA1c and other measures of glycemia disagree
Aims
Although diabetes management decisions in primary care are typically based largely on HbA1c, mismatches between HbA1c and other measures of glycemia that are increasingly more available present challenges to optimal management. This study aimed to assess a systematic approach to identify the frequency of mismatches of potential clinical significance amongst various measures of glycemia in a primary care setting.
Methods
Following screening to exclude conditions known to affect HbA1c interpretation, HbA1c, and fructosamine were obtained and repeated after ∼90 days on 53 adults with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes. A subset of 13 participants with repeat labs wore continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 10 days.
Results
As expected, HbA1c and fructosamine only modestly correlated (initial R2 = 0.768/repeat R2 = 0.655). The HbA1c/fructosamine mismatch frequency of ± 0.5% (using the following regression HbA1c = 0.015 *fructosamine + 2.994 calculated from the initial sample) was 27.0%. Of the 13 participants with CGM data, HbA1c and CGM-based Glucose Management Indicator correlated at R2 = 0.786 with a mismatch frequency of ± 0.5% at 46.2% compared to a HbA1c/fructosamine mismatch frequency of ± 0.5% at 30.8%.
Conclusions
HbA1c is frequently mismatched with fructosamine and CGM data. As each of the measures has strengths and weaknesses, the utilization of multiple different measures of glycemia may be informative for diabetes assessment in the clinical setting.
期刊介绍:
The journal publishes original research articles and high quality reviews in the fields of clinical care, diabetes education, nutrition, health services, psychosocial research and epidemiology and other areas as far as is relevant for diabetology in a primary-care setting. The purpose of the journal is to encourage interdisciplinary research and discussion between all those who are involved in primary diabetes care on an international level. The Journal also publishes news and articles concerning the policies and activities of Primary Care Diabetes Europe and reflects the society''s aim of improving the care for people with diabetes mellitus within the primary-care setting.