Diabetes care · 2024
Estimating Glycemia From HbA1c and CGM: Analysis of Accuracy and Sources of Discrepancy.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tozzo Veronica, Genco Matthew, Omololu Shammah O, Mow Christopher, Patel Hasmukh R, Patel Chhaya H, Ho Samantha N, Lam Evie, Abdulsater Batoul, Patel Nikita, Cohen Robert M, Nathan David M, Powe Camille E, Wexler Deborah J, Higgins John M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy of different periods of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and their combination for estimating mean glycemia over 90 days (AG90).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied 985 CGM periods of 90 days with <10% missing data from 315 adults (86% of whom had type 1 diabetes) with paired HbA1c measurements. The impact of mean red blood cell age as a proxy for nonglycemic effects on HbA1c was estimated using published theoretical models and in comparison with empirical data. Given the lack of a gold standard measurement for AG90, we applied correction methods to generate a reference (eAG90) that we used to assess accuracy for HbA1c and CGM.
RESULTS: Using 14 days of CGM at the end of the 90-day period resulted in a mean absolute error (95th percentile) of 14 (34) mg/dL when compared with eAG90. Nonglycemic effects on HbA1c led to a mean absolute error for average glucose calculated from HbA1c of 12 (29) mg/dL. Combining 14 days of CGM with HbA1c reduced the error to 10 (26) mg/dL. Mismatches between CGM and HbA1c >40 mg/dL occurred more than 5% of the time.
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of estimates of eAG90 from limited periods of CGM can be improved by averaging with an HbA1c-based estimate or extending the monitoring period beyond ∼26 days. Large mismatches between eAG90 estimated from CGM and HbA1c are not unusual and may persist due to stable nonglycemic factors.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied 985 CGM periods of 90 days with <10% missing data from 315 adults (86% of whom had type 1 diabetes) with paired HbA1c measurements. The impact of mean red blood cell age as a proxy for nonglycemic effects on HbA1c was estimated using published theoretical models and in comparison with empirical data. Given the lack of a gold standard measurement for AG90, we applied correction methods to generate a reference (eAG90) that we used to assess accuracy for HbA1c and CGM.
RESULTS: Using 14 days of CGM at the end of the 90-day period resulted in a mean absolute error (95th percentile) of 14 (34) mg/dL when compared with eAG90. Nonglycemic effects on HbA1c led to a mean absolute error for average glucose calculated from HbA1c of 12 (29) mg/dL. Combining 14 days of CGM with HbA1c reduced the error to 10 (26) mg/dL. Mismatches between CGM and HbA1c >40 mg/dL occurred more than 5% of the time.
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of estimates of eAG90 from limited periods of CGM can be improved by averaging with an HbA1c-based estimate or extending the monitoring period beyond ∼26 days. Large mismatches between eAG90 estimated from CGM and HbA1c are not unusual and may persist due to stable nonglycemic factors.