Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring Performance in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis
Authors' conclusion
Disagreements were found between the GMI and HbA1c levels in patients with LC. isCGM was able to detect abnormalities in glycemic control that would not be detected by monitoring with HbA1c, suggesting that isCGM can be useful in assessing glycemic control in patients with LC.
Study context
- Population
- Outpatients with liver cirrhosis (Child-Pugh B/C); Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) (FreeStyle Libre Pro) for 56 days (four sensors/patient)
- Participants
- 30 outpatients
- Exposure
- isCGM metrics across liver cirrhosis (LC) patients without DM, with newly diagnosed DM and with previous DM
- G1n = 10
- G2n = 10
- G3n = 10
- Outcome
- Discordance between GMI and HbA1c
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Glucose management indicator (GMI)–HbA1c mean difference, all groups together (95% SD 0.17, 0.63)
0.35%
GMI–HbA1c mean difference in G1 (95% SD 0.19, 0.73)
0.46%
GMI–HbA1c mean difference in G2 (95% SD 0.45, 1.33)
0.69%
GMI and HbA1c concordant in G3; mean difference (95% SD [−0.59, 0.38])
−0.10 %
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
GMI — between G1 and G2 · across G1, G2 and G3
P < 0.001
HbA1c — between G1 and G2 · across G1, G2 and G3
P < 0.001
TIR — between G1 and G2 · across G1, G2 and G3
P = 0.006
Glucose variability — between G1 and G2 · across G1, G2 and G3
P = 0.004
Average glucose — between G1 and G2 · across G1, G2 and G3
P < 0.001
Baseline characteristics
- No differences in baseline characteristics, except higher age in G3
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →