RESUMO
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) facilitates the assessment of short-term glucose variability and identification of acute excursions of hyper- and hypo-glycemia. Among 37 diabetic hemodialysis patients who underwent 7-day CGM with the iPRO2 device (Medtronic Diabetes, Northridge, CA, USA), we explored the accuracy of glycated albumin (GA) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in assessing glycemic control, using CGM-derived metrics as the reference standard. In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) in diagnosing a time in the target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (TIR70-180) in <50% of readings was higher for GA (AUC: 0.878; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.728-0.962) as compared to HbA1c (AUC: 0.682; 95% CI: 0.508-0.825) (p < 0.01). The accuracy of GA (AUC: 0.939; 95% CI: 0.808-0.991) in detecting a time above the target glucose range > 250 mg/dL (TAR>250) in >10% of readings did not differ from that of HbA1c (AUC: 0.854; 95% CI: 0.699-0.948) (p = 0.16). GA (AUC: 0.712; 95% CI: 0.539-0.848) and HbA1c (AUC: 0.740; 95% CI: 0.570-0.870) had a similarly lower efficiency in detecting a time below target glucose range < 70 mg/dL (TBR<70) in >1% of readings (p = 0.71). Although the mean glucose levels were similar, the coefficient of variation of glucose recordings (39.2 ± 17.3% vs. 32.0 ± 7.8%, p < 0.001) and TBR<70 (median (range): 5.6% (0, 25.8) vs. 2.8% (0, 17.9)) were higher during the dialysis-on than during the dialysis-off day. In conclusion, the present study shows that among diabetic hemodialysis patients, GA had higher accuracy than HbA1c in detecting a 7-day CGM-derived TIR70-180 < 50%. However, both biomarkers provided an imprecise reflection of acute excursions of hypoglycemia and inter-day glucose variability.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Sudomotor dysfunction is a feature of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (DPN). The indicator plaster Neuropad can provide an easy and accurate way to diagnose DPN. The aim of the present study was to evaluate Neuropad's specificity, sensitivity and accuracy in detecting DPN in patients with Diabetes Mellitus (DM). METHODS: A total of 174 patients with DM (79 with type 1 DM, 88 women), mean age 49.8 ± 16.1 years and mean DM duration 17.3 ± 7.7 years were included in the present study. The following methods were used to diagnose DPN: the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument Questionnaire and Examination (MNSIQ and MNSIE, respectively), application of 10 g monofilament (MONO) and measurement of vibration perception threshold with biothesiometer (BIO). Neuropad was applied to both feet in all patients and according to the presence or absence of color change of the sticker, patients were divided in two groups: group A (n = 82, complete change in color from blue to pink, depicting normal perspiration) and group B (n = 92, incomplete or no change, depicting abnormal perspiration). RESULTS: MNSIQ and MNSIE were positive for DPN in 111 and 119 patients, respectively. BIO was abnormal in 109 and MONO in 59 patients. Sensitivity of Neuropad testing was 95% vs. MONO, 73% vs. BIO, 73% vs. MNSIE and 75% vs. ΜNSIQ. Specificity was 69, 81, 90 and 92%, respectively and accuracy of the test was 78, 76, 78 and 83%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Neuropad has a high sensitivity and specificity in detecting DPN vs. MNSIQ, MNSIE and BIO. Neuropad has a high sensitivity but moderate specificity vs. MONO. The accuracy of the test was high in all measurements.