Role of Composite Glycemic Indices: A Comparison of the Comprehensive Glucose Pentagon Across Diabetes Types and HbA1c Levels

22 January 2020


Suresh Rama Chandran, Robert A. Vigersky, Andreas Thomas, Lee Ling Lim, Jeyakantha Ratnasingam, Alexander Tan, and Daphne S.L. Gardner

VIEW RESEARCH HERE
COPY CITATION
Copied!

Abstract

Background:

Complex changes of glycemia that occur in diabetes are not fully captured by any single measure. The Comprehensive Glucose Pentagon (CGP) measures multiple aspects of glycemia to generate the prognostic glycemic risk (PGR), which constitutes the relative risk of hypoglycemia combined with long-term complications. We compare the components of CGP and PGR across type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Methods:

Participants: n = 60 type 1 and n = 100 type 2 who underwent continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Mean glucose, coefficient of variation (%CV), intensity of hypoglycemia (INThypo), intensity of hyperglycemia (INThyper), time out-of-range (TOR <3.9 and >10 mmol/L), and PGR were calculated. PGR (median, interquartile ranges [IQR]) for diabetes types, and HbA1c classes were compared.

Results:

While HbA1c was lower in type 1 (type 1 vs. type 2: 8.0 ± 1.6 vs. 8.6 ± 1.7, P = 0.02), CGM-derived mean glucoses were similar across both groups (P > 0.05). TOR, %CV, INThypo, and INThyper were all higher in type 1 [type 1 vs. type 2: 665 (500, 863) vs. 535 (284, 823) min/day; 39% (33, 46) vs. 29% (24, 34); 905 (205, 2951) vs. 18 (0, 349) mg/dL × min2; 42,906 (23,482, 82,120) vs. 30,166 (10,276, 57,183) mg/dL × min2, respectively, all P < 0.05]. Across each HbA1c class, the PGR remained consistently and significantly higher in type 1. While mean glucose remained the same across HbA1c classes, %CV, TOR, INThyper, and INThypo were significantly higher for type 1. Even within the same HbA1c class, the variation (IQR) of each parameter in type 1 was wider. The PGR increased across diabetes groups; type 2 on orals versus type 2 on insulin versus type 1 (PGR: 1.6 vs. 2.2 vs. 2.9, respectively, P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

Composite indices such as the CGP capture significant differences in glycemia independent of HbA1c and mean glucose. The use of such indices must be explored in both the clinical and research settings.

Reference

  1. Nathan, D. M., Cleary, P. A., Backlund, J.-Y. C., et al. (2005). Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(25), 2643–2653. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052187
  2. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. (1998). Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). The Lancet, 352(9131), 837–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07019-6
  3. Holman, R. R., Paul, S. K., Bethel, M. A., et al. (2008). 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine, 359(15), 1577–1589. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0806470
  4. Danne, T., Nimri, R., Battelino, T., et al. (2017). International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care, 40(12), 1631–1640. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1600
  5. Monnier, L., Colette, C., & Owens, D. (2012). The glycemic triumvirate and diabetic complications: Is the whole greater than the sum of its component parts? Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 95(3), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2011.10.012
  6. Polonsky, W. H., Fisher, L., & Hessler, D. (2018). The impact of non-severe hypoglycemia on quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes. Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications, 32(4), 373–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2017.12.003
  7. Graveling, A. J., & Frier, B. M. (2010). Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia: A review. Diabetes & Metabolism, 36(Suppl 3), S64–S74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1262-3636(10)70471-2
  8. Khan, S. G., & Huda, M. S. (2017). Hypoglycemia and cardiac arrhythmia: Mechanisms, evidence base and current recommendations. Current Diabetes Reviews, 13(6), 590–597.
  9. Yeh, J. S., Sung, S.-H., Huang, H.-M., et al. (2016). Hypoglycemia and risk of vascular events and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Diabetologica, 53(3), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-015-0776-5
  10. Nalysnyk, L., Hernandez-Medina, M., & Krishnarajah, G. (2010). Glycaemic variability and complications in patients with diabetes mellitus: Evidence from a systematic review. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 12(4), 288–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2009.01166.x
  11. Monnier, L., Mas, E., Ginet, C., et al. (2006). Activation of oxidative stress by acute glucose fluctuations compared with sustained chronic hyperglycemia. JAMA, 295(14), 1681–1687. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.14.1681
  12. Cohen, R. M., Franco, R. S., Smith, E. P., et al. (2019). When HbA1c and blood glucose do not match: Race, genetics, and red blood cell age. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 104(3), 707–710. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2018-01234
  13. Malka, R., Nathan, D. M., & Higgins, J. M. (2016). Mechanistic modeling of hemoglobin glycation and red blood cell kinetics. Science Translational Medicine, 8(359), 359ra130. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf9671
  14. Tanenbaum, M. L., Adams, R. N., Hanes, S. J., et al. (2017). Optimal use of diabetes devices: Barriers and adherence. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 11(3), 484–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296816678266
  15. Rodbard, D. (2016). Continuous glucose monitoring: A review. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 18(Suppl 2), S2–S3.
  16. Rodbard, D. (2018). Glucose variability: A review of clinical applications. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 20(Suppl 2), S25–S215.
  17. Rodbard, D. (2009). Interpretation of CGM data. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 11(Suppl 1), S55–S67.
  18. Hill, N. R., Hindmarsh, P. C., Stevens, R. J., et al. (2007). A method for assessing quality of glucose control. Diabetic Medicine, 24(7), 753–758.
  19. Augstein, P., Heinke, P., Vogt, L., et al. (2015). Q-Score: A new CGM metric. BMC Endocrine Disorders, 15, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-015-0021-0
  20. Hirsch, I. B., Balo, A. K., Sayer, K., et al. (2017). Composite metric for CGM data. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 19(Suppl 3), S38–S48.
  21. Schlichtkrull, J., Munck, O., & Jersild, M. (1965). The M-value in diabetes. Acta Medica Scandinavica, 177, 95–102.
  22. Leelarathna, L., Thabit, H., Wilinska, M. E., et al. (2019). Novel composite CGM index. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.
  23. Clarke, W., & Kovatchev, B. (2009). Statistical tools for CGM data analysis. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 11(Suppl 1), S45–S54.
  24. Rodbard, D. (2015). Graphical assessment of glycemic control. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 9(1), 56–62.
  25. Russell, S. J., El-Khatib, F. H., Sinha, M., et al. (2014). Bionic pancreas study. New England Journal of Medicine, 371(4), 313–325.
  26. Thomas, A., Shin, J., Jiang, B., et al. (2018). Hypo-triad metric. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 12(1), 69–75.
  27. Thomas, A., Schönauer, M., Achermann, F., et al. (2009). Glucose pentagon model. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 11(6), 399–409.
  28. Vigersky, R. A., Shin, J., Jiang, B., et al. (2018). Comprehensive glucose pentagon. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 12(1), 114–123.
  29. Rama Chandran, S., Tay, W. L., Lye, W. K., et al. (2018). Glycemic variability and hypoglycemia. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 20(5), 353–362.
  30. Lim, L. L., Brnabic, A. J., Chan, S. P., et al. (2017). Glycemic patterns in Malaysia. Journal of Diabetes Investigation, 8(3), 453–461.
  31. Beck, R. W., Connor, C. G., Mullen, D. M., et al. (2017). Fallacy of average HbA1c. Diabetes Care, 40(7), 994–999.
  32. Wilson, D. M., Xing, D., et al. (2011). HbA1c vs mean glucose. Diabetes Care, 34(3), 540–544.
  33. NGSP. (2019). Factors that interfere with HbA1c test results. https://www.ngsp.org
  34. Hirsch, I. B., Sherr, J. L., & Hood, K. K. (2019). Time in range validation. Diabetes Care, 42(2), 345–348.
  35. Beck, R. W., Bergenstal, R. M., Riddlesworth, T. D., et al. (2019). Time in range validation. Diabetes Care, 42(3), 400–405.
  36. Lu, J., Ma, X., Zhou, J., et al. (2018). Time in range and retinopathy. Diabetes Care, 41(10), 2370–2376.
  37. Smith-Palmer, J., Brändle, M., Trevisan, R., et al. (2014). Glycemic variability and complications. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 105(2), 273–284.
  38. Vanstone, M., Rewegan, A., Brundisini, F., et al. (2015). Patient perspectives in type 1 diabetes. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series, 15(2), 1–29.
  39. Diabetes Care Writing Group. (2018). Beyond A1C metrics. Diabetes Care, 41(6), e92–e94.
  40. Vigersky, R. A., & McMahon, C. (2018). HbA1c and time-in-range relationship. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 21(2), 81–85.

Cite

Rama Chandran S, A Vigersky R, Thomas A, Lim LL, Ratnasingam J, Tan A, S L Gardner D. Role of Composite Glycemic Indices: A Comparison of the Comprehensive Glucose Pentagon Across Diabetes Types and HbA1c Levels. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020 Feb;22(2):103-111. doi: 10.1089/dia.2019.0277. Epub 2019 Oct 1. PMID: 31502876.

COPY CITATION Copied!
VIEW RESEARCH HERE