Time in range is a tool for assessing the quality of glycemic control in diabetes
https://doi.org/10.14341/DM12703
Abstract
The presence of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems has expanded diagnostic capabilities. The implementation of this technology into clinical practice allowed to determine the patterns and tendencies of excursions in glucose levels, to obtain reliable data concerning short-term glycemic control. Taking into consideration the large amount of obtained information using CGM systems, more than 30 different indicators characterizing glycemic variability were proposed. However, it is very difficult for a practitioner to interpret the data obtained due to the variety of indicators and the lack of their target values. The first step in the standardization of indices was the creation of the International Guidelines for CGM in 2017, where the Time in Range (TIR) (3,9–10,0 mmol/l, less often 3,9–7,8 mmol/l) was significant. To complement the agreed parameters and simplify the interpretation of obtained data using CGM, in 2019 the recommendations were prepared for the International Consensus on Time in Range, where TIR was validated as an additional component of the assessment of glycemic control along with HbA1c. In the literature review the issues of the association of TIR with the development of micro- and macrovascular complications in type 1 and 2 diabetes are considered. The relationship with other indicators of the glycemic control assessment was also analyzed and the dependence of insulin therapy on TIR was shown. TIR is a simple and convenient indicator, it has a proven link with micro- and macrovascular complications of diabetes and can be recommended as a new tool for assessing the glycemic control. The main disadvantage of TIR usage is the insufficient apply of CGM technology by the majority of patients with diabetes.
About the Authors
L. A. Suplotova
Tyumen State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Liudmila A. Suplotova, MD, PhD, Professor
Tyumen
eLibrary SPIN: 1212-5397
A. S. Sudnitsyna
Tyumen State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anna S. Sudnitsyna, MD
54 Odesskaya street, 625000 Tyumen
eLibrary SPIN: 2347-6680
N. V. Romanova
Regional Clinical Hospital №2
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia V. Romanova, MD
Tyumen
M. V. Shestakova
Endocrinology Research Centre
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina V. Shestakova, MD, PhD, Professor
Moscow
eLibrary SPIN: 7584-7015
References
1. Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB, et al. Continuous Glucose Monitoring vs Conventional Therapy for Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Treated With Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: The GOLD Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;317(4):379-387. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.19976
2. Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, et al. Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;317(4):371-378. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.19975
3. Vigersky RA, McMahon C. The Relationship of Hemoglobin A1C to Time-in-Range in Patients with Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(2):81-85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2018.0310
4. Nathan DM. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Study at 30 Years: Overview. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(1):9-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-2112
5. Galstyan GR. International guidelines for the study of glycated hemoglobin HbA1c as a diagnostic criterion for diabetes and other metabolic disorders. Diabetes mellitus. 2010;13(4):57-61. (In Russ.). doi: https://doi.org/10.14341/2072-0351-6059
6. Use of Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus: Abbreviated Report of a WHO Consultation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/70523
7. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM, et al. Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(8):1593-1603. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0028
8. Hashimoto K, Osugi T, Noguchi S, et al. A1C but not serum glycated albumin is elevated because of iron deficiency in late pregnancy in diabetic women. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(3):509-511. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc09-1954
9. Inaba M, Okuno S, Kumeda Y, et al. Osaka CKD Expert Research Group. Glycated albumin is a better glycemic indicator than glycated hemoglobin values in hemodialysis patients with diabetes: effect of anemia and erythropoietin injection. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18(3):896-903. doi: https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2006070772.
10. Bry L, Chen PC, Sacks DB. Effects of Hemoglobin Variants and Chemically Modified Derivatives on Assays for Glycohemoglobin. Clin Chem. 2001;47(2):153-163. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/47.2.153
11. Ford ES, Cowie CC, Li C, et al. Iron-deficiency anemia, non-iron-deficiency anemia and HbA1c among adults in the US. J Diabetes. 2011;3(1):67-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-0407.2010.00100.x
12. Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T, et al. International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(12):1631-1640. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1600
13. Petrie JR, Peters AL, Bergenstal RM, et al. Improving the clinical value and utility of CGM systems: issues and recommendations: A joint statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group. Diabetologia. 2017;60(12):2319-2328. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-017-4463-4
14. Beck RW, Riddlesworth TD, Ruedy K, et al. Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Usual Care in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Multiple Daily Insulin Injections. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(6):365. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2855
15. Vigersky RA, Fonda SJ, Chellappa M, et al. Short- and long-term effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(1):32-38. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-1438
16. Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, et al. Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10057):2254-2263. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31535-5
17. Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, et al. Flash Glucose-Sensing Technology as a Replacement for Blood Glucose Monitoring for the Management of Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: a Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(1):55-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6
18. Klimontov VV. Glycemic variability in diabetes: monograph. Ed. by VV. Klimontov, NE Myakina. Novosibirsk: IPC NSU; 2016. 252 p. (In Russ.).
19. Monnier L, Colette C, Wojtusciszyn A, et all. Toward Defining the Threshold Between Low and High Glucose Variability in Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(7):832-838. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-1769
20. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, et al. A1c-Derived Average Glucose Study Group. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1473-1478. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc08-0545
21. Kovatchev BP, Cox DJ, Gonder-Frederick LA, et al. Assessment of risk for severe hypoglycemia among adults with IDDM: validation of the low blood glucose index. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(11):1870-1875. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.21.11.1870
22. Kovatchev BP, Cox DJ, Gonder-Frederick LA, Clarke W. Symmetrization of the blood glucose measurement scale and its applications. Diabetes Care. 1997;20(11):1655-1658. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.20.11.1655
23. Kovatchev BP, Straume M, Cox DJ, Farhy LS. Risk Analysis of Blood Glucose Data: A Quantitative Approach to Optimizing the Control of Insulin Dependent Diabetes. J Theor Med. 2000;3(1):1-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10273660008833060
24. Fabris C, Patek SD, Breton MD. Are Risk Indices Derived From CGM Interchangeable With SMBG-Based Indices? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;10(1):50-59. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296815599177
25. Kohnert KD, Vogt L, Augstein P, et al. Relationships between glucose variability and conventional measures of glycemic control in continuously monitored patients with type 2 diabetes. Horm Metab Res. 2009;41(2):137-141. doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1128143
26. Patton SR, Midyett LK, Dolan LM, et al. A comparison of average daily risk range scores for young children with type 1 diabetes mellitus using continuous glucose monitoring and self-monitoring data. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14(3):239-243. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2011.0169
27. Kovatchev BP, Straume M, Cox DJ, Farhy LS. Glucose concentrations of less than 3.0 mmol/l (54 mg/dl) should be reported in clinical trials: a joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the Europian Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia. 2017;60(1):3-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-016-4146-6
28. Kovatchev BP, Straume M, Cox DJ, Farhy LS. 6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(S1):S61-S70. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-S006
29. Agiostratidou G, Anhalt H, Ball D, et al. Standardizing Clinically Meaningful Outcome Measures Beyond HbA 1c for Type 1 Diabetes: A Consensus Report of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the End. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(12):1622-1630. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1624
30. Rhee MK, Ho Y-L, Raghavan S, et al. Random plasma glucose predicts the diagnosis of diabetes. Hu C, ed. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219964. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219964
31. 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(11):2275-2280. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-1581
32. Leelarathna L, Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, et al. Glucose Management Indicator (GMI): Insights and Validation Using Guardian 3 and Navigator 2 Sensor Data. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(4):e60-e61. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-2479
33. Runge AS, Kennedy L, Brown AS, et al. Does Time-in-Range Matter? Perspectives From People With Diabetes on the Success of Current Therapies and the Drivers of Improved Outcomes. Clin Diabetes. 2018;36(2):112-119. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/cd17-0094
34. Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, Riddlesworth TD, et al. Validation of Time in Range as an Outcome Measure for Diabetes Clinical Trials. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(3):400-405. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-1444
35. Rodbard D. Metrics to Evaluate Quality of Glycemic Control: Comparison of Time in Target, Hypoglycemic, and Hyperglycemic Ranges with «Risk Indices». Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(5):325-334. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2017.0416
36. Xu W, Zhu Y, Yang X, et al. Glycemic variability is an important risk factor for cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients. Int J Cardiol. 2016;215:263-268. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.04.078
37. Lu J, Ma X, Zhou J, et al. 56th EASD Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia. 2020;63(S1):1-485. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-020-05221-5
38. Advancing Glycemic Management in People with Diabetes. 2019. Available from: www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports/advancing-glycemic-management-in-people-with-diabetes.
39. Lu J, Ma X, Zhou J, et al. Association of Time in Range, as Assessed by Continuous Glucose Monitoring, With Diabetic Retinopathy in Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(11):2370-2376. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18-1131
40. Mayeda L, Katz R, Ahmad I, et al. Glucose time in range and peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020;8(1):e000991. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-000991
41. Bergenstal RM, et al. Presented at the American Diabetes Association, 80th Scientific Sessions. June 12–16, 2020. Poster 21-LB.
42. Krinsley JS, Preiser J-C. Time in blood glucose range 70 to 140 mg/dl >80% is strongly associated with increased survival in non-diabetic critically ill adults. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-0908-7
43. Lanspa MJ, Krinsley JS, Hersh AM, et al. Percentage of Time in Range 70 to 139 mg/dL Is Associated With Reduced Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving IV Insulin Infusion. Chest. 2019;156(5):878-886. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.05.016
44. Galasso S, Facchinetti A, Bonora BM, et al. Switching from twice-daily glargine or detemir to once-daily degludec improves glucose control in type 1 diabetes. An observational study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;26(12):1112-1119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2016.08.002
45. Iga R, Uchino H, Kanazawa K, et al. Glycemic Variability in Type 1 Diabetes Compared with Degludec and Glargine on the Morning Injection: An Open-label Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(4):783-792. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-017-0269-0
46. Kawaguchi Y, Sawa J, Sakuma N, et al. Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs insulin degludec in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, open-label, cross-over study using continuous glucose monitoring profiles. J Diabetes Investig. 2019;10(2):343-351. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.12884
47. Yamabe M, Kuroda M, Hirosawa Y, et al. Comparison of insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin degludec using flash glucose monitoring: A randomized cross-over study. J Diabetes Investig. 2019;10(2):352-357. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.12894
48. Goldenberg R Aroda V, Billings L, et al. Effect of insulin degludec U100 vs insulin glargine U100 on time in range in patients with type 2 diabetes at risk of hypoglycaemia. 56th EASD Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia. 2020;63(S1):660. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-020-05221-5
49. Bajaj H, Isendahl J, Gowda A, et al. 56th EASD Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Efficacy and safety of switching to insulin icodec, a once-weekly basal insulin, vs insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on OADs and basal insulin. Diabetologia. 2020;6 (S1):657. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-020-05221-5
50. Bode B, Carlson A, Liu R, et al. 56th EASD Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Ultra Rapid Lispro (URLi) demonstrates similar time in target range to Lispro with the Medtronic MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system. Diabetologia. 2020;6(S1):678. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-020-05221-5
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Suplotova L.A., Sudnitsyna A.S., Romanova N.V., Shestakova M.V. Time in range is a tool for assessing the quality of glycemic control in diabetes. Diabetes mellitus. 2021;24(3):282-290. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14341/DM12703
Views:
15070
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Email this article 
