SAT099 Should We Use HbA1c Or Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) For Treatment Adjustment In Type 2 Diabetes Non-insulin Treated Patients?

Disclosure: T. Totomirova: None. M. Arnaudova: None. Current recommendations include treatment changes in type 2 non-insulin patients to be based preferably on HbA1c. HbA1c shows insufficiency as glucose control assessment tool omitting glucose fluctuations and hypoglycemic episodes. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was mostly used for insulin dose adjustment in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients on insulin. In our study we compared the retrospective CGM data with HbA1c to find out their usefulness for treatment decision in patients with type 2 diabetes. We studied 62 patients with type 2 diabetes non-treated with insulin (28 women, 34 men; age 59.35±11.0г years, disease duration 8.06±5.86г years). All of them performed retrospective Continuous Glucose Monitoring by using iPro(TM) for seven days and HbA1c was measured at the end of this period. We found HbA1c level to show good significant correlation with percentage of time in range be similar in three groups (7.13±0.85 vs 55.65±25.99%, r=-0.48), with maximum CGM glucose level (r=0.47, p<0.01) and minimum CGM glucose level (r=0.44, p<0.01) as well as with the mean CGM glucose level (7.15±1.80mmol/l, r=0.74, p<0.01). Patients estimated to be well controlled are the same percentage based on HbA1c as well based on TIR. HbA1c does not show any correlation with the number of excursions, with AUC below the limit and percentage of time below the limit. Our conclusion is that CGM gives more precise data about glycemic control and thus could be much more useful for treatment adjustment in non-insulin treated patients. Presentation: Saturday, June 17, 2023