HbA1c overestimates the glucose management indicator: a pilot study in patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease not on dialysis, and anemia using isCGM

Author:

Gómez Medina Ana12ORCID,González Camilo A.345,Muñoz Oscar M.36,Gómez Yalinne32,Jaramillo Pablo E.32,Henao Diana32,Rodríguez Luis M.3,Molina Yurany3

Affiliation:

1. Endocrinology Unit, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Carrera 7 No. 40-62, Bogotá 111021, Colombia

2. Endocrinology Unit, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogotá, Colombia

3. Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia

4. Nephrology Unit, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogotá, Colombia

5. Unidad Renal, Clínica Colsanitas, Bogotá, Colombia

6. Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital Universitario San Ignacio, Bogotá, Colombia

Abstract

Introduction: There are multiple mechanisms by which HbA1c values can be altered in chronic kidney disease (CKD), which limits its usefulness as a strategy to assess glycemic control in this population. Methods: Concordance and agreement study between two diagnostic tests: HbA1c and glucose management indicator (GMI) measured by intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), based in a prospective cohort of patients with diabetes, CKD (glomerular filtration rate between 15 and 60 ml/min/1.73 m²), and anemia. The isCGM was performed for 3 months, and the GMI was compared with the HbA1c levels taken at the end of isCGM. Agreement was evaluated using Bland–Altman graph analysis and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). The concordance of the measures with good glycemic control (<7%) was also evaluated. Results: A total of 74 patients were enrolled (median age 68.5 years, 51.3% female, 64.9% with CKD stage 3, hemoglobin 11.1 ± 1.2 g/l). The Bland–Altman analysis shows a mean difference between GMI and HbA1c of 0.757 ± 0.687% (95% limits of agreement: −0.590 and 2.105). Difference was greater as the values of GMI and HbA1c increased. The agreement was poor [CCC 0.477; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.360–0.594], as well as the concordance of values with good glycemic control according to GMI versus HbA1c (67.5% versus 29.7%, p < 0.001) (Kappa 0.2430; 95% CI: 0.16–0.32). Conclusion: The HbA1c overestimates the GMI values with highly variable ranges of difference, which prevents a precise correction factor. isCGM probably is a safer option for monitoring and decision-making in this population, especially in patients treated with insulin where the risk of hypoglycemia is greater.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3