Estimating Glycemia From HbA1c and CGM: Analysis of Accuracy and Sources of Discrepancy.

Veronica Tozzo, Matthew Genco, Shammah O Omololu,Christopher Mow, Hasmukh R Patel,Chhaya H Patel,Samantha N Ho, Evie Lam, Batoul Abdulsater,Nikita Patel,Robert M Cohen,David M Nathan,Camille E Powe,Deborah J Wexler,John M Higgins

Diabetes care(2024)

引用 0|浏览1
暂无评分
摘要
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.
更多
查看译文
AI 理解论文
溯源树
样例
生成溯源树,研究论文发展脉络
Chat Paper
正在生成论文摘要