Cohort study explores hemoglobin glycation index and its impact on renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes, suggesting significance for monitoring.
Renal progression remains a major unmet clinical challenge in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The hemoglobin glycation index (HGI), reflecting inter-individual variability in hemoglobin glycation independent of glucose levels, has been proposed as a complementary glycemic marker; however, its prognostic value for renal outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 441 adults with T2DM followed at a tertiary medical center between 2016 and 2021. HGI was calculated as the difference between observed HbA1c and predicted HbA1c derived from fasting plasma glucose. Baseline and mean first-year HGI and HbA1c were categorized into tertiles. Renal progression was defined as new-onset albuminuria or a ≥ 30% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate. Associations with renal progression were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models with sequential adjustment for demographic, metabolic, and treatment-related covariates. During a median follow-up of 61 months, 162 participants (36.7%) experienced renal progression. Higher baseline and mean first-year HGI were significantly associated with increased risk of renal progression across most multivariable models. In the fully adjusted model, participants in the highest tertile of mean first-year HGI had a 58% higher risk of renal progression compared with those in the lowest tertile (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.01–2.49). Baseline HbA1c was also associated with renal progression. In contrast, associations between HGI and new-onset retinopathy or all-cause mortality were not statistically significant after full adjustment. Both HGI and HbA1c were independently associated with renal progression in patients with T2DM. These findings suggest that inter-individual variability in hemoglobin glycation may be associated with renal progression in patients with T2DM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: