Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jul;33(7):1449-51.
doi: 10.2337/dc09-1498. Epub 2010 Mar 31.

Estimated average glucose and self-monitored mean blood glucose are discordant estimates of glycemic control

James M Hempe  1 , Arlette A Soros, Stuart A Chalew
Affiliations

Estimated average glucose and self-monitored mean blood glucose are discordant estimates of glycemic control

James M Hempe et al. Diabetes Care. 2010 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: The A1C-Derived Average Glucose study recommended reporting A1C in estimated average glucose (eAG) equivalents. We compared eAG with self-monitored mean blood glucose (MBG) to determine whether eAG is systematically biased due to biological variation in the relationship between MBG and A1C.

Research design and methods: MBG and A1C were recorded from charts of 202 pediatric type 1 diabetic patients at 1,612 clinic visits. Patients were divided into groups with low, moderate, or high A1C bias based on a hemoglobin glycation index (HGI).

Results: The mean +/- SD values for MBG versus eAG were as follows: total population, 194 +/- 34 vs. 196 +/- 36 mg/dl; low-HGI group, 186 +/- 31 vs. 163 +/- 20 mg/dl; moderate-HGI group, 195 +/- 28 vs. 193 +/- 19 mg/dl; and high-HGI group, 199 +/- 42 vs. 230 +/- 31 mg/dl.

Conclusions: eAG underestimated MBG in low HGI patients and overestimated MBG in high HGI patients. Disagreement between eAG and MBG downloaded from patient glucose meters will cause confusion if eAG is implemented for clinical use.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Disagreement between eAG and MBG. Mean eAG and mean self-monitored MBG were compared in all 202 patients in the population and separately by HGI group. Data are group means ± SD. MBG was similar to eAG in the population and in the moderate-HGI group, higher than eAG in the low-HGI group and lower than eAG in the high-HGI group. Dividing the study population into HGI groups automatically produces subpopulations with similar MBG but different A1C. Because eAG is calculated from A1C, it is not surprising that eAG systematically under- or overestimates MBG in some patients.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, Zheng H, Schoenfeld D, Heine RJ. A1c-Derived Average Glucose Study Group. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care 2008; 31: 1473–1478 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chalew S, Hempe JM: Caveats regarding the use of HbA1c for prediction of mean blood glucose. Diabetologia 2008; 51: 903–904 - PubMed
    1. Kilpatrick ES, Rigby AS, Atkin SL: Variability in the relationship between mean plasma glucose and HbA1c: implications for the assessment of glycemic control. Clin Chem 2007; 53: 897–901 - PubMed
    1. Bloomgarden ZT, Inzucchi SE, Karnieli E, Le Roith D: The proposed terminology 'A(1c)-derived average glucose' is inherently imprecise and should not be adopted. Diabetologia 2008; 51: 1111–1114 - PubMed
    1. Nathan DM: Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values: response to Rodriguez-Segade et al. and Leslie and Kilpatrick (Letter). Diabetes Care 2009; 32: e12. DOI: 10.2337/dc08-1752 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types