Accurate estimation of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) remains challenging in clinic. We propose two statistical models and validate them in real-life conditions against the current standard, glucose management indicator (GMI).
Materials and Methods:
Modeling utilized routinely collected data from patients with type 1 diabetes from central Poland (eligibility criteria: age >1 year, diabetes duration >3 months, and CGM use between 01/01/2015 and 12/31/2019). CGM records were extracted from dedicated Medtronic/Abbott databases and cross-referenced with HbA1c values; 28-day periods preceding HbA1c measurement with >75% of the sensor-active time were analyzed. We developed a mixed linear regression, including glycemic variability indices and patient's ID (glucose variability-based patient specific model, GV-PS) intended for closed-group use and linear regression using patient-specific error of GMI (proportional error-based patient agnostic model, PE-PA) for general use. Models were validated with either new HbA1cs from closed-group patients or separate patient-HbA1c pool. External validation was performed with data from clinical trials. Performance metrics included bias, its 95% confidence interval (95% CI), coefficient of determination (R2), and root mean square error (RMSE).
Results:
We included 723 HbA1c-CGM pairs from 174 patients (mean age 9.9 ± 4.4 years and diabetes duration 3.7 ± 3.6 years). GMI yielded R2 = 0.58, with different bias between Medtronic and Abbott devices [0.120% vs. −0.152%, P < 0.0001], and overall 95% CI = −0.9% to +1%, RMSE = 0.47%. GV-PS successfully captured patient-specific variance (closed-group validation: R2 = 0.83, bias = 0.026%, 95% CI = −0.562% to 0.591%, RMSE = 0.31%). PE-PA performed similarly on new patients (R2 = 0.76, bias = −0.069%, 95% CI = −0.790% to 0.653%, RMSE = 0.37%). In external validation GMI, GV-PS, and PE-PA produced 73.8%, 87.5%, and 91.0% predictions within 0.5% (5.5 mmol/mol) from the true value.
Conclusion:
Constructed models performed better than GMI. PE-PA provided an accurate estimate of HbA1c with fast and straightforward implementation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Cavero-RedondoI, PeleteiroB, Álvarez-BuenoC, et al.: Glycated haemoglobin A1c as a risk factor of cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in diabetic and non-diabetic populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 2017; 7:e015949.
2.
American Diabetes Association. 6. Glycemic targets: standards of medical care in diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:S61–S70.
3.
NathanDM, KuenenJ, BorgR, et al.: Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care, 2008; 31:1473–1478.
4.
KoenigRJ, PetersonCM, JonesRL, et al.: Correlation of glucose regulation and hemoglobin AIc in diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med, 1976; 295:417–420.
5.
Aaby SvendsenP, LauritzenT, SøegaardU, et al.: Glycosylated haemoglobin and steady-state mean blood glucose concentration in type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes. Diabetologia, 1982; 23:403–405.
6.
RohlfingCL, WiedmeyerHM, LittleRR, et al.: Defining the relationship between plasma glucose and HbA1c: analysis of glucose profiles and HbA1c in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes Care, 2002; 25:275–278.
7.
NathanDM, TurgeonH, ReganS: Relationship between glycated haemoglobin levels and mean glucose levels over time. Diabetologia, 2007; 50:2239–2244.
8.
OriotP, HermansMP: “Mind the gap please…”: estimated vs. measured A1c from continuous measurement of interstitial glucose over a 3-month period in patients with type 1 diabetes. Acta Clin Belgica, 2020; 75:109–115.
9.
KuenenJC, BorgR, KuikDJ, et al.: Does glucose variability influence the relationship between mean plasma glucose and HbA1c levels in type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients?. Diabetes Care, 2011; 34:1843–1847.
10.
DanneT, NimriR, BattelinoT, et al.: International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:1631–1640.
11.
DunnTC, XuY, HayterG, et al.: Real-world flash glucose monitoring patterns and associations between self-monitoring frequency and glycaemic measures: A European analysis of over 60 million glucose tests. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2018; 137:37–46.
12.
KucharskiP, PagaczK, SzadkowskaA, et al.: Resistance to data loss of glycemic variability measurements in long-term continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:833–842.
13.
ŁadyzyńskiP, FoltyńskiP, WójcickiJM, et al.: Estimation of the hemoglobin glycation rate constant based on the mean glycemia in patients with diabetes. In: IFMBE Proceedings. Vol. 41. Springer Verlag,, 2014:515–518. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-00846-2_127. Accessed September13, 2020.
14.
CohenRM, FrancoRS, KheraPK, et al.: Red cell life span heterogeneity in hematologically normal people is sufficient to alter HbA1c. Blood, 2008; 112:4284–4291.
15.
ŁadyżyńskiP, WójcickiJM, BąkMI, et al.: Hemoglobin glycation rate constant in non-diabetic individuals. Ann Biomed Eng, 2011; 39:2721–2734.
16.
BeckRW, ConnorCG, MullenDM, et al.: The fallacy of average: how using hba1c alone to assess glycemic control can be misleading. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:994–999.
17.
PetrieJR, PetersAL, BergenstalRM, et al.: Improving the clinical value and utility of CGM systems: issues and recommendations: a joint statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group. Diabetologia, 2017; 60:2319–2328.
18.
PluchinoKM, WuY, SilkAD, et al.: Glucose Management Indicator (GMI): a new term for estimating A1C from continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41:2275–2280.
19.
HeinemannL, FreckmannG, EhrmannD, et al.: Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycaemia awareness or severe hypoglycaemia treated with multiple daily insulin injections (HypoDE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2018; 391:1367–1377.
20.
BattelinoT, DanneT, BergenstalRM, et al.: Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:1593–1603.
21.
MoonsKGM, AltmanDG, ReitsmaJB, et al.: Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med, 2015; 162:W1–W73.
22.
WeichenthalS, BaumgartnerJ, HanleyJA: Sample size estimation for random-effects models balancing precision and feasibility in panel studies. Epidemiology, 2017; 28:817–826.
23.
HillNR, HindmarshPC, StevensRJ, et al.: A method for assessing quality of control from glucose profiles. Diabet Med, 2007; 24:753–758.
24.
McdonnellCM, DonathSM, VidmarSI, et al.: A novel approach to continuous glucose analysis utilizing glycemic variation. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2005; 7:253–263.
25.
BaghurstPA: Calculating the mean amplitude of glycemic excursion from continuous glucose monitoring data: an automated algorithm. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2011; 13:296–302.
26.
BatesD, MächlerM, BolkerBM, et al.: Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw, 2015; 67:1–48.
27.
JollyE: Pymer4: Connecting R and python for linear mixed modeling. J Open Source Softw, 2018; 3:862.
BergenstalRM, BeckRW, CloseKL, et al.: Glucose management indicator (GMI): a new term for estimating A1C from continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41:2275–2280.
30.
SorosAA, ChalewSA, McCarterRJ, et al.: Hemoglobin glycation index: a robust measure of hemoglobin A1c bias in pediatric type 1 diabetes patients. Pediatr Diabetes, 2010; 11:455–461.
31.
HudsonPR, ChildDF, JonesH, et al.: Differences in rates of glycation (glycation index) may significantly affect individual HbA(1c) results in type 1 diabetes. Ann Clin Biochem, 1999; 36:451–459.
32.
AngellottiE, MuppavarapuS, SiegelRD, et al.: The calculation of the glucose management indicator is influenced by the continuous glucose monitoring system and patient race. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22:651–657.
33.
Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group; Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Study Group; Buckingham BA, et al.: The effects of inpatient hybrid closed-loop therapy initiated within 1 week of type 1 diabetes diagnosis. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2013; 15:401–408.
34.
AleppoG, RuedyKJ, RiddlesworthTD, et al.: REPLACE-BG: a randomized trial comparing continuous glucose monitoring with and without routine blood glucose monitoring in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:538–545.
35.
PratleyRE, KanapkaLG, RickelsMR, et al.: Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2020; 323:2397–2406.
36.
MaurasN, BeckR, XingD, et al.: A randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in the management of type 1 diabetes in young children aged 4 to <10 years. Diabetes Care, 2012; 35:204–210.
37.
Dagogo-JackSE, CraftS, CryerPE: Hypoglycemia-associated autonomic failure in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Recent antecedent hypoglycemia reduces autonomic responses to, symptoms of, and defense against subsequent hypoglycemia. J Clin Invest, 1993; 91:819–828.
38.
SeaquistER, AndersonJ, ChildsB, et al.: Hypoglycemia and diabetes: a report of aworkgroup of the American diabetes association and the endocrine society. Diabetes Care, 2013; 36:1384–1395.
39.
Rama ChandranS, TayWL, LyeWK, et al.: Beyond HbA1c: comparing glycemic variability and glycemic indices in predicting hypoglycemia in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:353–362.
McCarterRJ, HempeJM, ChalewSA: Mean blood glucose and biological variation have greater influence on HbA1c levels than glucose instability: an analysis of data from the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes Care, 2006; 29:352–355.
42.
GopalanA, KellomK, McDonoughK, et al.: Exploring how patients understand and assess their diabetes control. BMC Endocr Disord, 2018; 18:79.
43.
AdvaniA: Positioning time in range in diabetes management. Diabetologia, 2020; 63:242–252.
44.
FabrisC, HeinemannL, BeckRW, et al.: Estimation of hemoglobin A1c from continuous glucose monitoring data in individuals with type 1 diabetes: is time in range all we need?. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22:501–508.
45.
LiF, ZhangY, LiH, et al.: TIR generated by continuous glucose monitoring is associated with peripheral nerve function in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2020; 166:108289.
46.
LuJ, MaX, ShenY, et al.: Time in range is associated with carotid intima-media thickness in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22:72–78.
47.
BeckRW, BergenstalRM, RiddlesworthTD, et al.: Validation of time in range as an outcome measure for diabetes clinical trials. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:400–405.
48.
Lledó-GarcíaR, MazerNA, KarlssonMO: A semi-mechanistic model of the relationship between average glucose and HbA1c in healthy and diabetic subjects. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn, 2013; 40:129–142.
49.
KameyamaM, TakeuchiS, IshiiS: Steady-state relationship between average glucose, HbA1c and RBC lifespan. J Theor Biol, 2018; 447:111–117.
50.
LadyzynskiP, FoltynskiP, BakMI, et al.: Validation of a hemoglobin A1c model in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and its use to go beyond the averaged relationship of hemoglobin A1c and mean glucose level. J Transl Med, 2014; 12:328.
51.
LeelarathnaL, BeckRW, BergenstalRM, et al.: Glucose management indicator (GMI): insights and validation using Guardian 3 and navigator 2 sensor data. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:E60–E61.
52.
LiuH, YangD, DengH, et al.: Impacts of glycemic variability on the relationship between glucose management indicator from iPro™ 2 and laboratory hemoglobin A1c in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab, 2020; 11:204201882093166.
53.
CohenRM, FrancoRS, SmithEP, et al.: When HbA1c and blood glucose do not match: how much is determined by race, by genetics, by differences in mean red blood cell age?. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2019; 104:707–710.
54.
NayakAU, SinghBM, DunmoreSJ: Potential clinical error arising from use of HbA1c in diabetes: effects of the glycation gap. Endocr Rev, 2019; 40:988–999.
55.
MichalakA, PagaczK, MłynarskiW, et al.: Discrepancies between methods of continuous glucose monitoring in key metrics of glucose control in children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes, 2019;20:pedi.12854.
56.
KarinkaSA, BaileyTS, BrazgRL, et al.: 910-P: improved accuracy of 14-day factory-Calibrated FreeStyle Libre System with New Glucose Algorithm. Diabetes, 2019; 68:910-P.
57.
MalkaR, NathanDM, HigginsJM: Mechanistic modeling of hemoglobin glycation and red blood cell kinetics enables personalized diabetes monitoring. Sci Transl Med, 2016; 8:359ra130.
58.
XuY, DunnTC, AjjanRA: A kinetic model for glucose levels and hemoglobin A1c provides a novel tool for individualized diabetes management. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2020; 1–9.
59.
KovatchevBP, FlackeF, SieberJ, et al.: Accuracy and robustness of dynamical tracking of average glycemia (A1c) to provide real-time estimation of hemoglobin A1c using routine self-monitored blood glucose data. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2014; 16:303–309.
60.
VigerskyRA, McMahonC: The relationship of hemoglobin A1C to time-in-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:81–85.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
