Chalew Stuart A, Hempe James M, McCarter Robert
Pediatric Endocrinology/Diabetes and Research Institute for Children, Children's Hospital of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, USA.
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009 Sep 1;3(5):1128-35. doi: 10.1177/193229680900300516.
Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is highly correlated with mean blood glucose (MBG) levels and widely used in assessment of diabetes therapy. It has been proposed to report HbA1c in terms of an estimated average glucose (eAG) derived from the population regression of MBG on HbA1c. Pertinent to the clinical utility of eAG would be the degree of agreement between eAG and MBG estimated from multiple sampled glucose measurements over time.
We examined agreement between eAG and MBG by Bland-Altman analysis from two different populations of type 1 diabetes patients: 150 children at our clinic in New Orleans and publicly available data from 1440 participants in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). In New Orleans, MBG was derived from the mean of each patient's self-monitored glucose records over the 3 months before the HbA1c was obtained at the patient's clinic visit. Hemoglobin A1c was traceable to the DCCT. In DCCT participants, MBG was calculated from the patient's seven-sample glucose profile set submitted during each quarterly visit. Estimated average glucose was calculated from each individual's HbA1c using a previously reported regression equation of MBG versus HbA1c, eAG = (HbA1c * 28.7) - 47.7, derived from a continuous glucose monitoring protocol over a 12-week period.
The analysis showed that there is frequent and clinically significant disagreement between MBG and eAG. Estimated average glucose over or under estimated MBG by 28.7 mg/dl or greater (HbA1c difference of 1% or greater) in approximately 33% of patients from both populations. The eAG overestimation of MBG was highest at lower MBG. The difference between eAG and MBG was skewed upward with increasing mean of eAG and MBG in the DCCT.
Frequent discordance between eAG and MBG in clinical practice will likely be confusing to patients and clinicians. In patients where eAG overestimates MBG, intensive management based on eAG alone will likely lead to greater frequency of hypoglycemic episodes. To overcome these limitations of eAG, a customized assessment of HbA1c with respect to a patient's MBG should be performed using directly monitored patient glucose levels over time.
糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)与平均血糖(MBG)水平高度相关,广泛应用于糖尿病治疗评估。有人提议根据通过MBG对HbA1c进行总体回归得出的估计平均血糖(eAG)来报告HbA1c。eAG的临床实用性相关的是eAG与通过对多个随时间采样的血糖测量值估计的MBG之间的一致程度。
我们通过Bland - Altman分析检查了来自两个不同的1型糖尿病患者群体的eAG与MBG之间的一致性:新奥尔良我们诊所的150名儿童以及糖尿病控制与并发症试验(DCCT)中1440名参与者的公开可用数据。在新奥尔良,MBG来自患者在诊所就诊时获取HbA1c前3个月内自我监测血糖记录的平均值。糖化血红蛋白可追溯至DCCT。在DCCT参与者中,MBG根据患者在每次季度就诊时提交的七次采样血糖谱计算得出。使用先前报道的MBG与HbA1c的回归方程eAG =(HbA1c * 28.7)- 47.7,根据个体的HbA1c计算估计平均血糖,该方程源自12周期间的连续血糖监测方案。
分析表明,MBG与eAG之间经常存在且具有临床意义的不一致。在两个群体中约33%的患者中,估计平均血糖高估或低估MBG达28.7mg/dl或更多(HbA1c差异达1%或更大)。在较低的MBG水平时,eAG对MBG的高估最高。在DCCT中,随着eAG和MBG平均值的增加,eAG与MBG之间的差异向上偏斜。
临床实践中eAG与MBG之间频繁不一致可能会使患者和临床医生感到困惑。在eAG高估MBG的患者中,仅基于eAG进行强化管理可能会导致低血糖发作频率增加。为克服eAG的这些局限性,应使用随时间直接监测的患者血糖水平对HbA1c相对于患者的MBG进行定制评估。