Reference Article: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/diacare/early/2018/09/17/dc18-1581.full.pdf
Of note, 2018 AADE President Donna Ryan, RN, RD, MPH, CDE, FAADE is a co-author of the reference article.
Blog Entry:
Comment on the just released paper: “Glucose Management Indicator (GMI); A New Term for Estimating A1c.”
This paper explains why and how the term Glucose Management Indicator was coined, the relationship between this value vs A1c and the need for patient/clinician education. It is available on DANA in the Featured Resources section.
The calculation and use of “estimated A1c” (eA1c) is explained. Due to the confusion generated when the eA1c and the A1c do not match, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), a division of FDA which regulates medical devices, requested the clinical community to address this issue. Various groups including patient advocates, educators and endocrinologists were involved in the decision to change the name. It appears that much thought and consideration from the various groups was involved in the final choice of Glucose Management Indicator. I was impressed that recommendations from JK Dickinson’s article “The Use of Language in Diabetes Care and Education” were used.
The article goes on to explain the evolution of the equation used to compute the GMI; this is followed by how to use the GMI along with A1c to effectively create personalized goals for patients. I recommend anyone interested in future trends in diabetes management read this article. I will be interested to see if the global diabetes community, as the authors hope, adopts this term.