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。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Primary Care Diabetes Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.pcd.2023.12.005
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 ,&nbsp;Eric P. Smith ,&nbsp;Sanjana S. Awasty ,&nbsp;Morgan Behan ,&nbsp;Matthew T. Genco ,&nbsp;Hannah Hempel ,&nbsp;Sabih Jafri ,&nbsp;Roman Jandarov ,&nbsp;Tara Nagaraj ,&nbsp;Robert S. Franco ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Eric P. Smith ,&nbsp;Sanjana S. Awasty ,&nbsp;Morgan Behan ,&nbsp;Matthew T. Genco ,&nbsp;Hannah Hempel ,&nbsp;Sabih Jafri ,&nbsp;Roman Jandarov ,&nbsp;Tara Nagaraj ,&nbsp;Robert S. Franco ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:虽然初级保健中的糖尿病管理决策通常主要基于 HbA1c,但 HbA1c 与其他血糖测量指标之间的不匹配现象越来越多,这给优化管理带来了挑战。本研究旨在评估一种系统性方法,以确定初级医疗机构中各种血糖测量指标之间具有潜在临床意义的不匹配频率:方法:在对 53 名患有糖尿病前期或 2 型糖尿病的成人进行筛查以排除已知会影响 HbA1c 解释的病症后,采集 HbA1c 和果糖胺,并在 90 天后重复检测。在重复化验的 13 名参与者中,有一部分人佩戴了连续血糖监测仪(CGM),为期 10 天:不出所料,HbA1c 和果糖胺仅有适度相关性(初始 R2 = 0.768/重复 R2 = 0.655)。HbA1c/ 果糖胺不匹配的频率为 ± 0.5%(使用以下回归法 HbA1c = 0.015 * 果糖胺 + 2.994,根据初始样本计算),为 27.0%。在 13 名有 CGM 数据的参与者中,HbA1c 和基于 CGM 的血糖管理指标的相关性为 R2 = 0.786,不匹配频率为 ± 0.5%,占 46.2%,而 HbA1c/果糖胺不匹配频率为 ± 0.5%,占 30.8%:结论:HbA1c 经常与果糖胺和 CGM 数据不匹配。由于每种测量方法都有优缺点,因此在临床环境中使用多种不同的血糖测量方法可能对糖尿病评估有参考价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Primary Care Diabetes
Primary Care Diabetes ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
3.40%
发文量
134
审稿时长
47 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Contents Editorial Board and Aims & Scopes Proactive total diet replacement referral for type 2 diabetes: A service evaluation Impact of lifestyle intervention on vitamin D, Adiponectin, Insulin-like growth factor 1 and Proneurotensin in overweight individuals from the Middle East Re-purposing SGLT-2 inhibitors for diabetic striatopathy
×
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