Updated Software for Automated Assessment of Glucose Variability and Quality of Glycemic Control in Diabetes.

Background: Glycemic variability is an important factor to consider in diabetes management. It can be assessed with multiple glycemic variability metrics and quality of control indices based on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recordings. For this, a robust repeatable calculation is important. A widely used tool for automated assessment is the EasyGV software. The aim of this work is to implement new methods of glycemic variability assessment in EasyGV and to validate implementation of each glucose metric in EasyGV against a reference implementation of the calculations. Methods: Validation data used came from the JDRF CGM study. Validation of the implementation of metrics that are available in EasyGV software v9 was carried out and the following new methods were added and validated: personal glycemic state, index of glycemic control, times in ranges, and glycemic variability percentage. Reference values considered gold standard calculations were derived from MATLAB implementation of each metric. Results: The Pearson correlation coefficient was above 0.98 for all metrics, except for mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (r = 0.87) as EasyGV implements a fuzzy logic approach to assessment of variability. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated validation of the new software. Conclusions: The new freely available EasyGV software v10 (www.phc.ox.ac.uk/research/technology-outputs/easygv) is a validated robust tool for analyzing different glycemic variabilities and control metrics.

Assessment of Glucose Control Metrics by Discriminant Ratio.

Objective: Increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data has created an array of glucose metrics for glucose variability, temporal patterns, and times in ranges. However, a gold standard metric has not been defined. We assess the performance of multiple glucose metrics to determine their ability to detect intra- and interperson variability to determine a set of recommended metrics. Methods: The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation data set, a randomized controlled study of CGM and self-monitored blood glucose conducted in children and adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), was used. To determine the ability of the evaluated glycemic metrics to discriminate between different subjects and attenuate the effect of within-subject variation, the discriminant ratio was calculated and compared for each metric. Then, the findings were confirmed using data from two other recent randomized clinical trials. Results: Mean absolute glucose (MAG) has the highest discriminant ratio value (2.98 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.64-3.67]). In addition, low blood glucose index and index of glycemic control performed well (1.93 [95% CI 1.15-3.44] and 1.92 [95% CI 1.27-2.93], respectively). For percentage times in glucose target ranges, the optimal discriminator was percentage time in glucose target 70-180 mg/dL. Conclusions: MAG is the optimal index to differentiate glucose variability in people with T1D, and may be a complementary therapeutic monitoring tool in addition to glycated hemoglobin and a measure of hypoglycemia. Percentage time in glucose target 70-180 mg/dL is the optimal percentage time in range to report.