Serum glycated albumin: Potential use as an index of glycemic control in diabetic dogs

2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 473-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Sako ◽  
A. Mori ◽  
P. Lee ◽  
T. Sato ◽  
H. Mizutani ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (05) ◽  
pp. 330-338
Author(s):  
Florian K. Zeugswetter ◽  
Andrea Sellner

Zusammenfassung Gegenstand und Ziel Zur Reduktion der klinischen Symptome und zur Verhinderung von lebensbedrohlichen Komplikationen sind bei Hunden mit Diabetes mellitus individualisierte Behandlungsstrategien und regelmäßige Kontrollen notwendig. Sieben bis 14 Tage nach jeder Anpassung der Insulindosierung und danach monatlich wird das Erstellen von Blutglukose-Tagesprofilen empfohlen. Im Jahr 2016 wurde ein herstellerkalibriertes Gerät zur kontinuierlichen Glukosemessung als Alternative zur Messung mittels Glukometer vorgeschlagen. Ziel dieser Arbeit war, die Erfahrungen mit dieser neuen Technologie zusammenzufassen und zu zeigen, dass bereits die erste Messperiode in Kombination mit einfachen Regeln eine Verbesserung der glykämischen Kontrolle ermöglicht. Material und Methoden Das elektronische Datensystem der endokrinen Einheit der Klinik wurde retrospektiv auf diabetische Hunde mit Flash-Glukose-Monitoring durchsucht. Bei multipler Sensorapplikation fand nur der erste Sensor Berücksichtigung. Die Aufzeichnungen von Tag A (1. Tag nach Sensorapplikation) wurden mit den Werten von Tag B (letzter Tag vor dem Sensorversagen) verglichen und alle Besitzer wurden gebeten, einen standardisierten Fragebogen auszufüllen. Ergebnisse In die Studie wurden 24 Hunde mit einem Gewicht von 3,4 bis 36 kg eingeschlossen. Obwohl das Klickgeräusch bei der Platzierung des Sensors die meisten Hunde irritierte, beurteilten Anwender die Applikation als einfach und für die Hunde schmerzlos. Eine kurze Pause nach der lokalen Desinfektion und die Fixierung des Sensors mit einer Pinzette verhinderten ein vorzeitiges Ablösen des Sensors beim Wegziehen des Applikators. Obwohl bei 80 % der Hunde milde bis moderate Hautirritationen beobachtet wurden, waren 95 % der Besitzer mit dieser Form des Monitorings hoch zufrieden. Die mittleren und maximalen Glukosekonzentrationen (p = 0,043, p = 0,003) sowie die Glukosewerte ≥ 11,1 mmol/l (p = 0,032) nahmen von Tag A zu Tag B ab, während die Parameter der glykämischen Variabilität unverändert blieben. Schlussfolgerung und klinische Relevanz Flash-Glukose-Monitoring ist eine praktikable, nebenwirkungsarme Methode mit hoher Besitzerzufriedenheit, mit der sich die glykämische Kontrolle bei diabetischen Hunden verbessern lässt.


2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (3) ◽  
pp. 677-687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cyrus V Desouza ◽  
Richard G Holcomb ◽  
Julio Rosenstock ◽  
Juan P Frias ◽  
Stanley H Hsia ◽  
...  

Abstract Context Intermediate-term glycemic control metrics fulfill a need for measures beyond hemoglobin A1C. Objective Compare glycated albumin (GA), a 14-day blood glucose measure, with other glycemic indices. Design 24-week prospective study of assay performance. Setting 8 US clinics. Participants Subjects with type 1 (n = 73) and type 2 diabetes (n = 77) undergoing changes to improve glycemic control (n = 98) or with stable diabetes therapy (n = 52). Interventions GA, fructosamine, and A1C measured at prespecified intervals. Mean blood glucose (MBG) calculated using weekly self-monitored blood glucose profiles. Main Outcome Measures Primary: Pearson correlation between GA and fructosamine. Secondary: magnitude (Spearman correlation) and direction (Kendall correlation) of change of glycemic indices in the first 3 months after a change in diabetes management. Results GA was more concordant (60.8%) with changes in MBG than fructosamine (55.5%) or A1C (45.5%). Across all subjects and visits, the GA Pearson correlation with fructosamine was 0.920. Pearson correlations with A1C were 0.655 for GA and 0.515 for fructosamine (P < .001) and with MBG were 0.590 and 0.454, respectively (P < .001). At the individual subject level, Pearson correlations with both A1C and MBG were higher for GA than for fructosamine in 56% of subjects; only 4% of subjects had higher fructosamine correlations with A1C and MBG. GA had a higher Pearson correlation with A1C and MBG in 82% and 70% of subjects, respectively. Conclusions Compared with fructosamine, GA correlates significantly better with both short-term MBG and long-term A1C and may be more useful than fructosamine in clinical situations requiring monitoring of intermediate-term glycemic control (NCT02489773).


2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Divani ◽  
Panagiotis I. Georgianos ◽  
Triantafyllos Didangelos ◽  
Fotios Iliadis ◽  
Areti Makedou ◽  
...  

Background: Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) among diabetic hemodialysis patients continues to be the standard of care, although its limitations are well recognized. This study evaluated glycated albumin (GA) and glycated serum protein (GSP) as alternatives to HbA1c in detecting glycemic control among diabetic hemodialysis patients using continuous-glucose-monitoring (CGM)-derived glucose as reference standard. Methods: A CGM system (iPRO) was applied for 7 days in 37 diabetic hemodialysis patients to determine glycemic control. The accuracy of GA and GSP versus HbA1c in detecting a 7-day average glucose ≥184 mg/dL was evaluated via receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: CGM-derived glucose exhibited strong correlation (r = 0.970, p < 0.001) and acceptable agreement with corresponding capillary glucose measurements obtained by the patients themselves in 1,169 time-points over the 7-day-long CGM. The area under ROC curve (AUC) for GA, GSP, and HbA1c to detect poor glycemic control was 0.976 (0.862–1.000), 0.682 (0.502–0.862), and 0.776 (0.629–0.923) respectively. GA levels >20.3% had 90.9% sensitivity and 96.1% specificity in detecting a 7-day average glucose ≥184 mg/dL. The AUC for GA was significantly higher than the AUC for GSP (difference between areas: 0.294, p < 0.001) and the AUC for HbA1c (difference between areas: 0.199, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Among diabetic hemodialysis patients, GA is a stronger indicator of poor glycemic control assessed with 7-day-long CGM when compared to GSP and HbA1c.


Nephron ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 145 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-19
Author(s):  
Tobias Bomholt ◽  
Therese Adrian ◽  
Kirsten Nørgaard ◽  
Ajenthen G. Ranjan ◽  
Thomas Almdal ◽  
...  

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Glycated haemoglobin A<sub>1c</sub> (HbA<sub>1c</sub>) has limitations as a glycemic marker for patients with diabetes and CKD and for those receiving dialysis. Glycated albumin is an alternative glycemic marker, and some studies have found that glycated albumin more accurately reflects glycemic control than HbA<sub>1c</sub> in these groups. However, several factors are known to influence the value of glycated albumin including proteinuria. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is another alternative to HbA<sub>1c</sub>. CGM allows one to assess mean glucose, glucose variability, and the time spent in hypo-, normo-, and hyperglycemia. Currently, several different CGM models are approved for use in patients receiving dialysis; CKD (not on dialysis) is not a contraindication in any of these models. Some devices are for blind recording, while others provide real-time data to patients. Small studies suggest that CGM could improve glycemic control in hemodialysis patients, but this has not been studied for individual CKD stages. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> Glycated albumin and CGM avoid the pitfalls of HbA<sub>1c</sub> in CKD and dialysis populations. However, the value of glycated albumin may be affected by several factors. CGM provides a precise estimation of the mean glucose. Here, we discuss the strengths and limitations for using HbA1c, glycated albumin, or CGM in CKD and dialysis population. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> Glycated albumin is an alternative glycemic marker but is affected by proteinuria. CGM provides a precise estimation of mean glucose and glucose variability. It remains unclear if CGM improves glycemic control in the CKD and dialysis populations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document