IntroductionThe availability of easily accessible continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics can improve glycemic control in diabetes, and they may even become a viable alternative to hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) laboratory tests in the next years. The REALISM-T1D study (REAl-Life glucoSe Monitoring in Type 1 Diabetes) was aimed at contributing, with real-world data, to a deeper understanding of these metrics, including the time in range (TIR)–HbA1c relationship, to facilitate their adoption by diabetologists in everyday practice.Research design and methods70 adults affected by type 1 diabetes were monitored for 1 year by means of either flash (FGM) or real-time (rtCGM) glucose monitoring devices. Follow-up visits were performed after 90, 180 and 365 days from baseline and percentage TIR70–180 evaluated for the 90-day time period preceding each visit. HbA1c tests were also carried out in the same occasions and measured values paired with the corresponding TIR data.ResultsA monovariate linear regression analysis confirms a strong correlation between TIR and HbA1c as found in previous studies, but leveraging more homogeneous data (n=146) collected in real-life conditions. Differences were determined between FGM and rtCGM devices in Pearson’s correlation (rFGM=0.703, rrtCGM=0.739), slope (β1,FGM=−11.77, β1,rtCGM=−10.74) and intercept (β0,FGM=141.19, β0,rtCGM=140.77) coefficients. Normality of residuals and homoscedasticity were successfully verified in both cases.ConclusionsRegression lines for two patient groups monitored through FGM and rtCGM devices, respectively, while confirming a linear relationship between TIR and A1c hemoglobin (A1C) in good accordance with previous studies, also show a statistically significant difference in the regression intercept, thus suggesting the need for different models tailored to device characteristics. The predictive power of A1C as a TIR estimator also deserves further investigations.
Background: The adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) already helps to improve glycemic control in diabetes. When coupled with appropriate data analysis techniques, CGM also provides dependable estimates for significant metrics, like glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Findings from the REALISM-T1D study can boost HbA1c estimation methods in diabetes care and stimulate their use in clinical practice. Methods: Continuous glucose monitoring data of 27 adults affected by type-1 diabetes were acquired by means of G6 (Dexcom, San Diego, CA) sensors for a time span of 120 days. Glycated hemoglobin laboratory assays were performed during the concluding follow-up visits. Data were then analyzed to derive estimates of assay results, taken as the gold standard. Results: Bland-Altman (BA) plots show that smart interpolation to patch missing data and a wise choice of interstitial glucose (IG) weighting function, besides a proper mean interstitial glucose (MIG) to HbA1c regression equation, improve HbA1c estimation quality with respect to methods relying on MIG alone. A decrease in the BA plot-related variance of differences with respect to the gold standard confirms the improvement. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests on the bias-compensated mean squared error (MSE) with respect to conventional MIG-based methods show that the improvement is statistically significant with a confidence level better than 95% ( P = .0179). Conclusions: Improved HbA1c estimation methods result in better HbA1c prediction quality with respect to those based on MIG alone, thus providing quick, but still relatively accurate feedback to diabetologists. They alleviate the discordances reported in literature and, with further improvements, may become a viable complement/alternative to HbA1c assays.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.