Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Diabetes Care ; 40(8): 994-999, 2017 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28733374

ABSTRACT

HbA1c is a valuable metric for comparing treatment groups in a randomized trial, for assessing glycemic trends in a population over time, or for cross-sectional comparisons of glycemic control in different populations. However, what is not widely appreciated is that HbA1c may not be a good indicator of an individual patient's glycemic control because of the wide range of mean glucose concentrations and glucose profiles that can be associated with a given HbA1c level. To illustrate this point, we plotted mean glucose measured with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus central laboratory-measured HbA1c in 387 participants in three randomized trials, showing that not infrequently HbA1c may underestimate or overestimate mean glucose, sometimes substantially. Thus, if HbA1c is to be used to assess glycemic control, it is imperative to know the patient's actual mean glucose to understand how well HbA1c is an indicator of the patient's glycemic control. With knowledge of the mean glucose, an estimated HbA1c (eA1C) can be calculated with the formula provided in this article to compare with the measured HbA1c. Estimating glycemic control from HbA1c alone is in essence applying a population average to an individual, which can be misleading. Thus, a patient's CGM glucose profile has considerable value for optimizing his or her diabetes management. In this era of personalized, precision medicine, there are few better examples with respect to the fallacy of applying a population average to a specific patient rather than using specific information about the patient to determine the optimal approach to treatment.


Subject(s)
Blood Glucose/analysis , Glycated Hemoglobin/analysis , Adult , Aged , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood , Disease Management , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Precision Medicine , Young Adult
2.
J Diabetes Sci Technol ; 7(2): 562-78, 2013 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23567014

ABSTRACT

Underutilization of glucose data and lack of easy and standardized glucose data collection, analysis, visualization, and guided clinical decision making are key contributors to poor glycemic control among individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus. An expert panel of diabetes specialists, facilitated by the International Diabetes Center and sponsored by the Helmsley Charitable Trust, met in 2012 to discuss recommendations for standardizing the analysis and presentation of glucose monitoring data, with the initial focus on data derived from continuous glucose monitoring systems. The panel members were introduced to a universal software report, the Ambulatory Glucose Profile, and asked to provide feedback on its content and functionality, both as a research tool and in clinical settings. This article provides a summary of the topics and issues discussed during the meeting and presents recommendations from the expert panel regarding the need to standardize glucose profile summary metrics and the value of a uniform glucose report to aid clinicians, researchers, and patients.


Subject(s)
Blood Glucose/analysis , Decision Making , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/blood , Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Research Design/standards , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/standards , Data Display/standards , Decision Making/physiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/therapy , Humans , Models, Biological , Monitoring, Ambulatory/statistics & numerical data , Reference Standards , Research Design/legislation & jurisprudence , Statistics as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Statistics as Topic/standards
3.
Diabetes Technol Ther ; 15(3): 198-211, 2013 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23448694

ABSTRACT

Abstract Underutilization of glucose data and lack of easy and standardized glucose data collection, analysis, visualization, and guided clinical decision making are key contributors to poor glycemic control among individuals with type 1 diabetes. An expert panel of diabetes specialists, facilitated by the International Diabetes Center and sponsored by the Helmsley Charitable Trust, met in 2012 to discuss recommendations for standardization of analysis and presentation of glucose monitoring data, with the initial focus on data derived from CGM systems. The panel members were introduced to a universal software report, the Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP), and asked to provide feedback on its content and functionality, both as a research tool and in clinical settings. This paper provides a summary of the topics and issues discussed during the meeting and presents recommendations from the expert panel regarding the need to standardize glucose profile summary metrics and the value of a uniform glucose report to aid clinicians, researchers, and patients.


Subject(s)
Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/standards , Blood Glucose/metabolism , Diabetes Mellitus/blood , Hyperglycemia/blood , Hypoglycemia/blood , Monitoring, Ambulatory/standards , Decision Making , Female , Humans , Male , Reference Standards , Software , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...