Evaluation of HbA1c and glucose management indicator discordance in a population of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Issue 1 (15th December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Piona, Claudia; Marigliano, Marco; Mozzillo, Enza; Di Candia, Francesca; Zanfardino, Angela; Iafusco, Dario; Maltoni, Giulio; Zucchini, Stefano; Piccinno, Elvira; Maffeis, Claudio
• Is Part Of: Pediatric diabetes. Volume 23:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: 84
• Page End: 89
• Publication Date: 2021-12-15
• Subjects: children and adolescents -- continuous glucose monitoring -- glucose management indicator -- HbA1c -- type 1 diabetes; Diabetes in children -- Periodicals; 616.462
• DOI: 10.1111/pedi.13299
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1399-543X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Glucose management indicator (GMI) is a useful metric for the clinical management of diabetic patients using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). In adults, a marked discordance between HbA1c and GMI has been reported. To date, no studies have evaluated this discordance in children/adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: HbA1c and real‐life CGM data of the 12 weeks preceding HbA1c measurement were collected from 805 children/adolescents. The absolute difference between HbA1c and GMI was calculated for both the 12‐week and 4‐week periods preceding HbA1c measurement and the proportion of discordant patients was defined according to specific thresholds in the entire study population and in subjects stratified by type of CGM, insulin therapy, gender, age and puberty. Regression analyses were performed with HbA1c‐GMI discordance as dependent variable and patients' characteristics as independent ones. A new GMI equation for children and adolescent was derived from the linear regression analysis between mean glucose and HbA1c. Results: HbA1c‐GMI discordance calculated on the 12‐week period was <0.1, ≥0.5 and ≥1.0 in 24.8, 33.9 and 9.2% of the subjects, respectively. No significant differences in the proportion of discordant patients were found comparing patients stratified by type of CGM, insulin therapy, gender, age and puberty. GMI‐HbA1c discordance was not significantly explained by age, gender, BMI, type of CGM, insulin therapy, hemoglobin, anemia and autoimmune diseases ( R 2 = 0.012, p = 0.409). HbA1c‐GMI discordance calculated on the 4‐week period was comparable. GMI (%) equation derived for this cohort was: 3.74 + 0.022x (mean glucose in mg/dl). Conclusions: GMI could be meaningfully discordant respect to HbA1c in more than a third of children/adolescents with T1D. This discrepancy should be taken into careful consideration when the two indices are directly compared in daily clinical practice.