OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association
Mar 23, 2025; e70023.

Managing discordance between HbA and glucose management indicator.

Erna Lenters-Westra, Marion Fokkert, Eric S Kilpatrick, Erwin Schleicher, Scott Pilla, Emma English, Peter van Dijk
Author Information
  1. Erna Lenters-Westra: Department of Clinical Chemistry, Isala, Zwolle, the Netherlands.
  2. Marion Fokkert: Department of Clinical Chemistry, Isala, Zwolle, the Netherlands. ORCID
  3. Eric S Kilpatrick: Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Manchester Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
  4. Erwin Schleicher: Department for Diagnostic Laboratory Medicine, Institute for Clinical Chemistry and Pathobiochemistry, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
  5. Scott Pilla: Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. ORCID
  6. Emma English: University of Cambridge, Madingley Hall, UK. ORCID
  7. Peter van Dijk: Department of Internal Medicine, Diabetes Centre, Isala, Zwolle, the Netherlands.
PMID: 40123266 DOI: 10.1111/dme.70023

Abstract

AIMS: The assessment of haemoglobin A1c (HbA) continues to play an essential role in diabetes care; however, major advances in new technologies widen the armament available to clinicians to further refine treatment for their patients. Whilst HbA remains a critical glycaemic marker, advances in technologies such as Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) now offer real-time glucose monitoring, allowing a more instant assessment of glycaemic control. Discrepancies between laboratory-measured HbA and Glucose Management Indicator (GMI) values are a significant clinical issue. In this article, we present a checklist of potential sources of error for both GMI and HbA values and provide suggestions to mitigate these sources in order to continue to improve diabetes care.
METHODS: We identified key literature pertaining to GMI measurement, HbA measurement, and potential factors of discordance between the two. Using these sources, we explore the potential factors leading to discordance and how to mitigate these when found.
RESULTS: We have constructed a quick reference checklist covering the main sources of discordance between HbA and GMI, with accompanying narrative text for more detailed discussion. Discordance can arise due to various factors, including CGM accuracy, sensor calibration, red blood cell turnover and other physiological conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: GMI will likely continue to be used in the upcoming years by both persons with diabetes and their health care providers, and so it is important for users of CGM devices to be equipped with the knowledge to understand the potential causes of discordance between GMI and HbA values.

Keywords

GMI HbA1c diabetes discordance

References

  1. Diabetes Control and Complication Trial (DCCT) Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long���term complications in insulin���dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:977���986.
  2. United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Research Group. Intensive blood���glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 1998;352:837���853.
  3. The DCCT/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complication (EDIC) study group. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular outcomes in type 1 diabetes: the DCCT/EDIC study 30���year follow���up. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:686���693.
  4. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Glycemic goals and hypoglycemia: standards of care in diabetes ��� 2024. Diabetes Care. 2024;47(Supplement_1):S111���S125.
  5. Jeppsson J���O, Kobold U, Barr J, et al. Approved IFCC reference method for the measurement of HbA1c in human blood. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2002;40:78���89.
  6. NGSP. Background. Accessed 16 October 2024. https://ngsp.org/bground.asp
  7. IFCC/HbA1c. IFCC Certificate Manufacturers. Accessed 9 October 2024. https://www.ifcchba1c.org/GeneralInformation.aspx?I=14
  8. NGSP. List of NGSP certified methods. Accessed 16 October 2024. https://ngsp.org/docs/methods.pdf
  9. Lameijer A, Fokkert MJ, Edens MA, Gans ROB, Bilo HJG, van Dijk PR. Two���year use of flash glucose monitoring is associated with sustained improvement of glycemic control and quality of (FLARE���NL���6). BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2021;9:e002124.
  10. Lacy ME, Lee KE, Atac O, et al. Patterns and trends in continuous glucose monitoring utilization among commercially insured individuals with type 1 diabetes: 2010���2013 to 2016���2019. Clin Diabetes. 2024;42:338���397.
  11. Mayberry LS, Guy C, Hendrickson CD, McCoy AB, Elasy T. Rates and correlates of uptake of continuous glucose monitors among adults with type 2 diabetes in primary care and endocrinology settings. J Gen Intern Med. 2023;38:2546���2552.
  12. American Diabetes Association. Standards of care in diabetes���2024. Diabetes Care. 2023;47:S111���S125.
  13. Bergenstal RM, Beck RW, Close KL, et al. Glucose management indicator (GMI): a new term for estimating A1C from continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:2275���2280.
  14. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, et al. Translating the A1c assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:1473���1478.
  15. Selvin E. The glucose management indicator: time to change course? Diabetes Care. 2024;47:906���914.
  16. Norris AW, Lang JB. Comments on Selvin: the glucose management indicator: time to change course? Diabetes Care. 2024;47:e74���e75.
  17. Valenzo M, Bertolotti IC, Grassi G, et al. Predicting glycated hemoglobin through continuous glucose monitoring in real���life condition: improved estimation methods. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2023;17:998���1007.
  18. Bergenstal RM, Beck RW. Comments on Selvin: the glucose management indicator: time to change course? Diabetes Care. 2024;47:e48���e49.
  19. Perlman JE, Gooley TA, McNulty B, Meyers J, Hirsch IB. HbA1c and glucose management indicator discordance: a real���world analysis. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021;23:253���258.
  20. College of American Pathologists (CAP) GH5 Survey Data. Accessed 24 February 2025. https://ngsp.org/CAP/CAP23c.pdf
  21. Sterner Isaksson S, Imberg H, Hirsch IB, et al. Discordance between mean glucose and time in range in relation to HbA1c in individuals with type 1 diabetes: results from the GOLD and SILVER trials. Diabetologia. 2024;67(8):1517���1526.
  22. Bailey R, Calhoun P, Bergenstal RM, et al. Assessment of glucose management indicator using different sampling durations. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2023;25:148���450.
  23. Cengiz E, Tamborlane WV. A tale of two compartments: interstitial versus blood glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(Suppl 1):S11���S16.
  24. Fokkert MJ, van Dijk PR, Edens MA, et al. Performance of Eversense versus free style libre flash glucose monitoring during exercise and normal daily activities in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020;8:e001193.
  25. Beck RW, Bergenstal RM. Beyond A1c���standardization of continuous glucose monitoring reporting: why it is needed and how it continues to evolve. Spectrum. 2021;34:102���108.
  26. Freckman G, Nichols JH, Hinzmann R, et al. Standardization process of continue glucose monitoring: traceability and performance. Clin Chim Acta. 2021;515:5���12.
  27. Kim N, Pham K, Shek A, et al. Differences in glucose level between right arm and left arm using continuous glucose monitors. Digit Health. 2020;6:1���7.
  28. Jafri RZ, Balliro CA, EI���Katib F, et al. A three���way accuracy comparison of the Dexcom G5, Abbott freestyle libre pro, and Senseonics Eversense continuous glucose monitoring devices in a home���use study of subjects with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(11):846���852. doi:10.1089/dia.2019.0449
  29. Pleus S, Eichenlaub M, Eriksson Boija E, et al. The need for standardization of continuous glucose monitoring performance evaluation: an opinion by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group on continuous glucose monitoring. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2024. doi:10.1177/19322968241296097
  30. Beck RW, Connor CG, Mullen D, et al. The fallacy of average: how using HbA1c alone to asses glycemic control can be misleading. Diabetes Care. 2017;40:994���999.
  31. Heinemann L, Freckmann G, Ehrmann D, et al. Real���time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycemia awareness or severe hypoglycaemia treated with multiple daily insulin injections (HypoDE): a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391:1367���1377.
  32. Karakus KE, Snell���Bergeon JK, Akturk HK. Comparison of computational statistical packages for the analysis of continuous glucose monitoring data with a reference software, ���ambulatory glucose profile,��� in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2025;27:202���208. doi:10.1089/dia.2024.0410
  33. Ekhlaspour L, Mondesir D, Lautsch N, et al. Comparative accuracy of 17 point���of���care glucose meters. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11:558���566.
  34. Klonoff DC, Parkes JL, Kovatchev BP, et al. Investigation of the accuracy of 18 marketed blood glucose monitors. Diabetes Care. 2018;41:1681���1688.
  35. Heinemann L. Interferences with CGM systems: practical relevance? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022;6:271���274.
  36. Cohen RM, Franco RS, Khera PK, et al. Red cell life span heterogeneity in hematologically normal people is sufficient to alter HbA1c. Blood. 2008;112:4284���4291.
  37. Franco RS. Measurement of red cell lifespan and aging. Transfus Med Hemother. 2012;39:302���307.
  38. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Diabetes Work Group. Kidney disease improving global outcomes clinical practice guideline (KDIGO) for diabetes management in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2022;102(Suppl 5S):S1���S127.
  39. Lenters���Westra E, Atkin SL, Kilpatrick ES, et al. Limitation in glycated albumin standardization when applied to the assessment of patients with diabetes. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2024;62:2526���2533.
  40. Arndt PA, Garratty G. The changing spectrum of drug���induced immune hemolytic anemia. Semin Hematol. 2005;42:137���144.
  41. Hill QA, Massey R, Grainer E, et al. Guidelines on the management of drug���induced immune and secondary autoimmune, haemolytic anaemia. BJHaem. 2017;177:208���220.
  42. Lenters���Westra E, Den Besten G, Slingerland RJ. An unexpected low HbA1c: measurement error or interpretation problem? Clin Chem. 2019;65:1062���1063.
  43. English E, Idris I, Smith S, Dhatariya K, Kilpatrick KS, John WG. The effect of anemia and abnormalities of erythrocyte indices on HbA1c analysis: a systematic review. Diabetologia. 2015;58(7):1409���1421. doi:10.1007/s00125-015-3599-3
  44. Bissinger R, Nemkov T, D'Alessandro A, et al. Proteinuric chronic kidney disease is associated with altered red blood cell lifespan, deformability and metabolism. Kidney Int. 2021;100:1227���1239.
  45. Deng Y, Cheng D, Liao G, Tan X, Yang J. Trimester���specific reference intervals for hemoglobin A1c in non���diabetic pregnancy in a Chinese population. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23:671.
  46. Sacks DB, Arnold M, Bakris GL, et al. Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2023;46:e151���e199.
  47. NGSP HbA1c Assay Interferences. Accessed 16 October 2024. https://ngsp.org/factors.asp
  48. Ithanet portal for haemoglobinopathies. Accessed 16 October 2024. https://www.ithanet.eu
Journal Article Review
Article has an altmetric score of 1

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0HbAGMIdiscordancediabetespotentialsourcescareCGMvaluesfactorsassessmentadvancestechnologiesglycaemicGlucoseglucosechecklistmitigatecontinuemeasurementAIMS:haemoglobinA1ccontinuesplayessentialrolehowevermajornewwidenarmamentavailablecliniciansrefinetreatmentpatientsWhilstremainscriticalmarkerContinuousMonitoringnowofferreal-timemonitoringallowinginstantcontrolDiscrepancieslaboratory-measuredManagementIndicatorsignificantclinicalissuearticlepresenterrorprovidesuggestionsorderimproveMETHODS:identifiedkeyliteraturepertainingtwoUsingexploreleadingfoundRESULTS:constructedquickreferencecoveringmainaccompanyingnarrativetextdetaileddiscussionDiscordancecanariseduevariousincludingaccuracysensorcalibrationredbloodcellturnoverphysiologicalconditionsCONCLUSIONS:willlikelyusedupcomingyearspersonshealthprovidersimportantusersdevicesequippedknowledgeunderstandcausesManagingmanagementindicatorHbA1c

Similar Articles

Cited By