This study examined correlations between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based composite metrics and standard glucose metrics within CGM data sets from individuals with recent-onset and long-duration type 1 diabetes. First, a literature review and critique of published CGM-based composite metrics was undertaken. Second, composite metric results were calculated for the two CGM data sets and correlations with six standard glucose metrics were examined. Fourteen composite metrics met selection criteria; these metrics focused on overall glycemia (n = 8), glycemic variability (n = 4), and hypoglycemia (n = 2), respectively. Results for the two diabetes cohorts were similar. All eight metrics focusing on overall glycemia strongly correlated with glucose time in range; none strongly correlated with time below range. The eight overall glycemia-focused and two hypoglycemia-focused composite metrics were all sensitive to automated insulin delivery therapeutic intervention. Until a composite metric can adequately capture both achieved target glycemia and hypoglycemia burden, the current two-dimensional CGM assessment approach may offer greatest clinical utility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KovatchevBP, OttoE, CoxD, et al.Evaluation of a new measure of blood glucose variability in diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2006; 29(11):2433–2438.
2.
YapanisM, JamesS, CraigME, et al.Complications of diabetes and metrics of glycaemic management derived from continuous glucose monitoring. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2022; 107(6):e2221–e2236.
3.
CerielloA, MonnierL, OwensD. Glycaemic variability in diabetes: Clinical and therapeutic implications. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2019; 7(3):221–230.
4.
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(8):1593–1603.
5.
PeyserTA, BaloAK, BuckinghamBA, et al.Glycemic variability percentage: A novel method for assessing glycemic variability from continuous glucose monitor data. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20(1):6–16.
6.
KanisJA, JohnellO, OdenA, et al.FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int, 2008; 19(4):385–397.
7.
NguyenM, HanJ, SpanakisEK, et al.A review of continuous glucose monitoring-based composite metrics for glycemic control. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22(8):613–622.
8.
WaibelM, ThomasHE, WentworthJM, et al.Investigating the efficacy of baricitinib in new onset type 1 diabetes mellitus (BANDIT)-study protocol for a phase 2, randomized, placebo controlled trial. Trials, 2022; 23(1):433.
9.
McAuleySA, TrawleyS, VogrinS, et al.Closed-loop insulin delivery versus sensor-augmented pump therapy in older adults with type 1 diabetes (ORACL): A randomized, crossover trial. Diabetes Care, 2022; 45(2):381–390.
10.
DanneT, NimriR, BattelinoT, et al.International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40(12):1631–1640.
11.
BreitlingR, ArmengaudP, AmtmannA, HerzykP. Rank products: A simple, yet powerful, new method to detect differentially regulated genes in replicated microarray experiments. FEBS Lett, 2004; 573(1–3):83–92.
12.
HillNR, HindmarshPC, StevensRJ, et al.A method for assessing quality of control from glucose profiles. Diabet Med, 2007; 24(7):753–758.
RodbardD. Interpretation of continuous glucose monitoring data: Glycemic variability and quality of glycemic control. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11:S55–S67.
15.
AugsteinP, HeinkeP, VogtL, et al.Q-Score: Development of a new metric for continuous glucose monitoring that enables stratification of antihyperglycaemic therapies. BMC Endocr Disord, 2015; 15:22.
16.
HirschIB, BaloAK, SayerK, et al.A simple composite metric for the assessment of glycemic status from continuous glucose monitoring data: Implications for clinical practice and the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19(S3):S38–S48.
17.
VigerskyRA, ShinJ, JiangB, et al.The comprehensive glucose pentagon: A glucose-centric composite metric for assessing glycemic control in persons with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2018; 12(1):114–123.
18.
LeelarathnaL, ThabitH, WilinskaME, et al.Evaluating glucose control with a novel composite continuous glucose monitoring index. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2020; 14(2):277–283.
19.
KlonoffDC, WangJ, RodbardD, et al. A glycemia risk index (GRI) of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia for continuous glucose monitoring validated by clinician ratings. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2022. Online ahead of print; doi: 10.1177/19322968221085273
20.
McDonnellCM, DonathSM, VidmarSI, et al.A novel approach to continuous glucose analysis utilizing glycemic variation. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2005; 7(2):253–263.
21.
HermanidesJ, VriesendorpTM, BosmanRJ, et al.Glucose variability is associated with intensive care unit mortality. Crit Care Med, 2010; 38(3):838–842.
22.
ThomasA, ShinJ, JiangB, et al.The development of new composite metrics for the comprehensive analytic and visual assessment of hypoglycemia using the Hypo-Triad. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2018; 12(1):69–75.
23.
RodbardD. Metrics to evaluate quality of glycemic control: Comparison of time in target, hypoglycemic, and hyperglycemic ranges with “risk indices”. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20(5):325–334.
24.
RodbardD. Quality of glycemic control: Assessment using relationships between metrics for safety and efficacy. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021; 23(10):692–704.
25.
VigerskyRA, McMahonC. The relationship of hemoglobin A1C to time-in-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21(2):81–85.
26.
MontaserE, FabrisC, KovatchevB. Essential continuous glucose monitoring metrics: The principal dimensions of glycemic control in diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2022; 24(11):797–804.
27.
McAuleySA, TrawleyS. Closed-loop therapy in older adults with type 1 diabetes: Hypoglycaemia benefits and risk stratification. Lancet Healthy Longev, 2022; 3(6):e378.
28.
BenhamouPY, AdenisA, TourkiY, et al. Efficacy of a hybrid closed-loop solution in patients with excessive time in hypoglycaemia: A post hoc analysis of trials with DBLG1 system. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2022. Online ahead of print; doi: 10.1177/19322968221128565.
29.
MoscardóV, HerreroP, ReddyM, et al.Assessment of glucose control metrics by discriminant ratio. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22(10):719–726.
30.
KovatchevBP, CoxDJ, Gonder-FrederickLA, et al.Assessment of risk for severe hypoglycemia among adults with IDDM: Validation of the low blood glucose index. Diabetes Care, 1998; 21(11):1870–1875.
31.
KovatchevBP, CoxDJ, Gonder-FrederickL, ClarkeWL. Methods for quantifying self-monitoring blood glucose profiles exemplified by an examination of blood glucose patterns in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2002; 4(3):295–303.
32.
RodbardD, BaileyT, JovanovicL, et al.Improved quality of glycemic control and reduced glycemic variability with use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11(11):717–723.
33.
HillNR, OliverNS, ChoudharyP, et al.Normal reference range for mean tissue glucose and glycemic variability derived from continuous glucose monitoring for subjects without diabetes in different ethnic groups. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2011; 13(9):921–928.
34.
Klaus-DieterK, HeinkeP, VogtL, et al.Indices for assessment of the quality of glycemic control and glucose dynamics from continuous glucose monitoring. Int J Diabetes Clin Res, 2017; 4:071.
35.
BrownD, AldeaA, HarrisonR, et al.Temporal case-based reasoning for type 1 diabetes mellitus bolus insulin decision support. Artif Intell Med, 2018; 85:28–42.
36.
ThomasA, SchönauerM, AchermannF, et al.The “glucose pentagon”: Assessing glycemic control of patients with diabetes mellitus by a model integrating different parameters from glucose profiles. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11(6):399–409.
37.
Rama ChandranS, VigerskyRA, ThomasA, et al.Role of composite glycemic indices: A comparison of the comprehensive glucose pentagon across diabetes types and HbA1c levels. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22(2):103–111.
38.
MesserLH, BergetC, PyleL, et al.Real-world use of a new hybrid closed loop improves glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2021; 23(12):837–843.
39.
KohnertKD, HeinkeP, FritzscheG, et al.Evaluation of the mean absolute glucose change as a measure of glycemic variability using continuous glucose monitoring data. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2013; 15(6):448–454.
40.
PattonSR, ClementsMA. Average daily risk range as a measure for clinical research and routine care. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2013; 7(5):1370–1375.
41.
El-LaboudiAH, GodslandIF, JohnstonDG, OliverNS. Measures of glycemic variability in type 1 diabetes and the effect of real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2016; 18(12):806–812.
42.
GarciaA, BaloAK, BuckinghamBA, et al.Application of glycemic variability percentage: Implications for continuous glucose monitor utilization and analysis of artificial pancreas data. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19(12):699–706.
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.
