Suppr超能文献

现实世界实践水平数据分析证实了1型糖尿病患者血糖监测试纸(BGMS)的变异性与糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)之间的联系。

Real-world practice level data analysis confirms link between variability within Blood Glucose Monitoring Strip (BGMS) and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in Type 1 Diabetes.

作者信息

Heald Adrian H, Livingston Mark, Fryer Anthony, Cortes Gabriela, Anderson Simon G, Gadsby Roger, Laing Ian, Lunt Mark, Young Robert J, Stedman Mike

机构信息

The School of Medicine and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Salford Royal Hospital, Salford, UK.

出版信息

Int J Clin Pract. 2018 Dec;72(12):e13252. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13252. Epub 2018 Aug 31.

Abstract

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to quantify the impact of Blood Glucose Monitoring Strips variability (BGMSV) at GP practice level on the variability of reported glycated haemoglobin (HbA1cV) levels.

METHODS

Overall GP Practice BGMSV and HbA1cV were calculated from the quantity of main types of BGMS being prescribed combined with the published accuracy, as % results within ±% bands from reference value for the selected strip type. The regression coefficient between the BGMSV and HbA1cV was calculated. To allow for the aggregation of estimated three tests/day over 13 weeks (ie, 300 samples) of actual Blood Glucose (BG) values up to the HbA1c, we multiplied HbA1cV coefficient by √300 to estimate an empirical value for impact of BGMSV on BGV.

RESULTS

Four thousand five hundred and twenty-four practice years with 159 700 T1DM patient years where accuracy data were available for more than 80% of strips prescribed were included, with overall BGMSV 6.5% and HbA1c mean of 66.9 mmol/mol (8.3%) with variability of 13 mmol/mol equal to 19% of the mean. At a GP practice level, BGMSV and HbA1cV as % of mean HbA1c (in other words, the spread of HbA1c) were closely related with a regression coefficient of 0.176, P < 0.001. Thus, greater variability in the BGMS at a GP practice level resulted in a greater spread of HbA1C readings in T1DM patients. Applying this factor for BGMS to the national ISO accepted standard where 95% results must be ≤±15% from reference, revealed that for BG, 95% results would be ≤±45% from the reference value. Thus, the variation in BG is three times that of the BGMS. For a patient with BG target @10 mmol/L using the worst performing ISO standard strips, on 1/20 occasions (average 1/week) actual blood glucose value could be >±4.5 mmol/L from target, compared with the best performing BGMS with BG >±2.2 mmol/L from reference on 1/20 occasions.

CONCLUSION

Use of more variable/less accurate BGMS is associated both theoretically and in practice with a larger variability in measured BG and HbA1c, with implications for patient confidence in their day-to-day monitoring experience.

摘要

目的/假设:我们的目的是量化全科医生诊所层面的血糖监测试纸变异性(BGMSV)对报告的糖化血红蛋白水平变异性(HbA1cV)的影响。

方法

根据所开具的主要类型血糖监测试纸的数量以及已公布的准确性来计算全科医生诊所的总体BGMSV和HbA1cV,以所选试纸类型相对于参考值的±%范围内的结果百分比来表示。计算BGMSV和HbA1cV之间的回归系数。为了将估计的每天三次检测在13周(即300个样本)内的实际血糖(BG)值汇总到糖化血红蛋白,我们将HbA1cV系数乘以√300以估计BGMSV对血糖变异性(BGV)影响的经验值。

结果

纳入了4524个诊所年份以及159700个1型糖尿病患者年份,其中超过80%所开具试纸的准确性数据可用,总体BGMSV为6.5%,糖化血红蛋白平均为66.9 mmol/mol(8.3%),变异性为13 mmol/mol,相当于平均值的19%。在全科医生诊所层面,BGMSV和作为平均糖化血红蛋白百分比的HbA1cV(换句话说,糖化血红蛋白的离散程度)密切相关,回归系数为0.176,P < 0.001。因此,全科医生诊所层面BGMS的变异性越大,1型糖尿病患者糖化血红蛋白读数的离散程度就越大。将BGMS的这个因素应用于国家ISO认可标准(其中95%的结果必须在相对于参考值的±15%以内),结果显示对于血糖,95%的结果将在相对于参考值的±45%以内。因此,血糖的变异性是血糖监测试纸变异性的三倍。对于血糖目标为10 mmol/L的患者,使用性能最差的ISO标准试纸时,每20次中有1次(平均每周1次)实际血糖值可能偏离目标值>±4.5 mmol/L,而使用性能最佳的血糖监测试纸时,每20次中有1次血糖偏离参考值>±2.2 mmol/L。

结论

在理论和实践中,使用变异性更大/准确性更低的血糖监测试纸都与所测血糖和糖化血红蛋白的更大变异性相关,这会影响患者对日常监测体验的信心。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/feeb/6766879/ca4cdf31b36c/IJCP-72-na-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验