Clinical analysis demonstrates reduced accuracy of HbA1c and alternative glycemic markers in diabetic kidney disease, suggesting broader use of self-monitored blood glucose.
with macroalbuminuria). As far as the second question, of whether the alternative measures, namely fructosamine and glycated albumin, may be more useful with CKD, Jung et al. found that these parameters are equally flawed with CKD. Intriguingly, this suggests that anemia affects indirect measures of glycemic exposure not only by its association with more rapid erythrocyte turnover, but, more generally, also as a marker of a catabolic state with altered plasma protein turnover. How, then, should we assess a given diabetic person's degree of glycemic control in the presence of CKD (or of anemia, which, per Jung et al., was, even without CKD, also associated with a reduction in the correlation between HbA1c and fasting glucose)? Jung et al. suggest the use of continuous glucose monitoring to estimate average glucose. Although becoming recognized as an important tool, this technology is not as generally available as the simpler self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). In an earlier analysis of potential complexities of HbA1c as a measure of glycemic exposure, we showed that self-monitored plasma glucose profiles suggest that approximately 10% of individuals with diabetes have HbA1c substantially above and another 10% have HbA1c substantially below those that may be anticipated based on mean glucose levels. In clinical practice, then, we should consider encouraging older people with diabetes and CKD to perform SMBG to more adequately interpret HbA1c results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bloomgarden et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: