Continuous glucose monitoring metrics (Mean Glucose, time above range and time in range) are superior to glycated haemoglobin for assessment of therapeutic efficacy.

Abstract

To evaluate continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics for use as alternatives to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) to evaluate therapeutic efficacy. We re-analysed correlations among CGM metrics from studies involving 545 people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), 5910 people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and 98 people with T1D during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Three CGM metrics, interstitial fluid Mean Glucose level, proportion of time above range (%TAR) and proportion of time in range (%TIR), were correlated with HbA1c and provided metrics that can be used to evaluate therapeutic efficacy. Mean Glucose showed the highest correlation with %TAR (r= 0.98 in T1D, 0.97 in T2D) but weaker correlations with %TIR (r= -0.92 in T1D, -0.83 in T2D) or with HbA1c (r= 0.78 in T1D). %TAR and %TIR were highly correlated changes in (r= -0.96 in T1D, -0.91 in T2D). After 6 months of use of real-time CGM by people with T1D, changes in Mean Glucose level were more highly correlated with changes in %TAR (r= 0.95) than with changes in %TIR (r= -0.85) or with changes in HbA1c level (r= 0.52). These metrics can be combined with metrics of hypoglycaemia and/or glycaemic variability to provide a more comprehensive assessment of overall quality of glycaemic control. The CGM metrics %TAR and %TIR show much higher correlations with Mean Glucose than with HbA1c and provide sensitive indicators of efficacy. Mean glucose may be the best metric and shows consistently higher correlations with %TAR than with %TIR.