Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNiwaha, AJ
dc.contributor.authorRodgers, LR
dc.contributor.authorGreiner, R
dc.contributor.authorBalungi, PA
dc.contributor.authorMwebaze, R
dc.contributor.authorMcDonald, TJ
dc.contributor.authorHattersley, AT
dc.contributor.authorShields, BM
dc.contributor.authorNyirenda, MJ
dc.contributor.authorJones, AG
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-06T10:15:43Z
dc.date.issued2021-09-17
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The utility of HbA1c (glycosylated hemoglobin) to estimate glycemic control in populations of African and other low-resource countries has been questioned because of high prevalence of other medical conditions that may affect its reliability. Using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), we aimed to determine the comparative performance of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (within 5 hours of a meal) and random non-fasting glucose (RPG) in assessing glycemic burden. Research design and methods: We assessed the performance of HbA1c, FPG and RPG in comparison to CGM mean glucose in 192 Ugandan participants with type 2 diabetes. Analysis was undertaken in all participants, and in subgroups with and without medical conditions reported to affect HbA1c reliability. We then assessed the performance of FPG and RPG, and optimal thresholds, in comparison to HbA1c in participants without medical conditions thought to alter HbA1c reliability. Results: 32.8% (63/192) of participants had medical conditions that may affect HbA1c reliability: anemia 9.4% (18/192), sickle cell trait and/or hemoglobin C (HbC) 22.4% (43/192), or renal impairment 6.3% (12/192). Despite high prevalence of medical conditions thought to affect HbA1c reliability, HbA1c had the strongest correlation with CGM measured glucose in day-to-day living (0.88, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.91), followed by FPG (0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86) and RPG (0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81). Among participants without conditions thought to affect HbA1c reliability, FPG and RPG had a similar diagnostic performance in identifying poor glycemic control defined by a range of HbA1c thresholds. FPG of ≥7.1 mmol/L and RPG of ≥10.5 mmol/L correctly identified 78.2% and 78.8%, respectively, of patients with an HbA1c of ≥7.0%. Conclusions: HbA1c is the optimal test for monitoring glucose control even in low-income and middle-income countries where medical conditions that may alter its reliability are prevalent; FPG and RPG are valuable alternatives where HbA1c is not available.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 9, No. 1, article e002350en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002350
dc.identifier.grantnumber17/63/131en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/127370
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_GB
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.en_GB
dc.titleHbA1c performs well in monitoring glucose control even in populations with high prevalence of medical conditions that may alter its reliability: The OPTIMAL observational multicenter studyen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2021-10-06T10:15:43Z
dc.identifier.issn2052-4897
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from BMJ Publishing via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.descriptionData availability statement: Data are available upon reasonable request.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBMJ Open Diabetes Research and Careen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-08-22
exeter.funder::National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
exeter.funder::National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-09-17
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2021-10-06T10:11:49Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2021-10-06T10:15:50Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.