Search

IntroductionThe utility of HbA1c (glycosylated hemoglobin) to estimate glycemic control in populations of African and other low-resource countries has been questioned because of high prevalence of other medical conditions that may affect its reliability. Using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), we aimed to determine the comparative performance of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (within 5 hours of a meal) and random non-fasting glucose (RPG) in assessing glycemic burden.Research design and methodsWe assessed the performance of HbA1c, FPG and RPG in comparison to CGM mean glucose in 192 Ugandan participants with type 2 diabetes. Analysis was undertaken in all participants, and in subgroups with and without medical conditions reported to affect HbA1c reliability. We then assessed the performance of FPG and RPG, and optimal thresholds, in comparison to HbA1c in participants without medical conditions thought to alter HbA1c reliability.Results32.8% (63/192) of participants had medical conditions that may affect HbA1c reliability: anemia 9.4% (18/192), sickle cell trait and/or hemoglobin C (HbC) 22.4% (43/192), or renal impairment 6.3% (12/192). Despite high prevalence of medical conditions thought to affect HbA1c reliability, HbA1c had the strongest correlation with CGM measured glucose in day-to-day living (0.88, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.91), followed by FPG (0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86) and RPG (0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81). Among participants without conditions thought to affect HbA1c reliability, FPG and RPG had a similar diagnostic performance in identifying poor glycemic control defined by a range of HbA1c thresholds. FPG of ≥7.1 mmol/L and RPG of ≥10.5 mmol/L correctly identified 78.2% and 78.8%, respectively, of patients with an HbA1c of ≥7.0%.ConclusionsHbA1c is the optimal test for monitoring glucose control even in low-income and middle-income countries where medical conditions that may alter its reliability are prevalent; FPG and RPG are valuable alternatives where HbA1c is not available.

IntroductionPharmaceutical treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have increased to include multiple classes of oral glucose-lowering agents but without accompanying guidance on which of these may most benefit individual patients. Clinicians lack information for treatment intensification after first-line metformin therapy. Stratifying patients by simple clinical characteristics may improve care by targeting treatment options to those in whom they are most effective. This academically designed and run three-way crossover trial aims to test a stratification approach using three standard oral glucose-lowering agents.Methods and analysisTriMaster is a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial taking place at up to 25 clinical sites across England, Scotland and Wales. 520 patients with T2DM treated with either metformin alone, or metformin and a sulfonylurea who have glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >58 mmol/mol will be randomised to receive 16 weeks each of a dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor and thiazolidinedione in random order. Participants will be assessed at the end of each treatment period, providing clinical and biochemical data, and their experience of side effects. Participant preference will be assessed on completion of all three treatments. The primary endpoint is HbA1c after 4 months of therapy (allowing a range of 12–18 weeks for analysis). Secondary endpoints include participant-reported preference between the three treatments, tolerability and prevalence of side effects.Ethical approvalThis study was approved by National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee South Central—Oxford A, study 16/SC/0147. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific meetings. A lay summary of results will be made available to all participants.Trial registration numbers12039221; 2015-002790-38 and NCT02653209.