Differences in A1C by race and ethnicity among patients with impaired glucose tolerance in the Diabetes Prevention Program

The clinical use of hemoglobin A1c

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) has been accepted as an index of glycemic control since the mid-1970s and is the best marker for diabetic microvascular complications. Clinically, it is now used to assess glycemic control in people with diabetes. Assays are most reliable when certified by the National Hemoglobin Standardization Program but are subject to confounders and effect modifiers, particularly in the setting of hematologic abnormalities. Other measures of chronic glycemic control-fructosamine and 1,5-anhydroglucitol-are far less widely used. The relationship of HbA1c to average blood glucose was intensively studied recently, and it has been proposed that this conversion can be used to report an "estimated average glucose, eAG" in milligrams/deciliter or millimolar units rather than as per cent glycated hemoglobin. Finally, HbA1c has been proposed as a useful method of screening for and diagnosing diabetes.

Racial and ethnic differences in mean plasma glucose, hemoglobin A1c, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol in over 2000 patients with type 2 diabetes

CONTENT

Recent studies have reported hemoglobin A(1c) (A1c) differences across racial/ethnic groups. Our diverse population allows for further investigation of potential differences in measurements of glycemia.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to describe and explore baseline racial/ethnic differences in self-monitored plasma glucose profiles, A1c, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) in patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the Assessing DURAbility of Basal vs. Lispro Mix 75/25 Insulin Efficacy trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS

The trial enrolled 2094 patients with type 2 diabetes, ages 30-80 yr, from 11 countries.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Estimated mean plasma glucose (MPG), A1c, and 1,5-AG were compared among racial/ethnic groups before and after adjusting for factors affecting glycemia: age, sex, duration of diabetes, body mass index, and MPG.

RESULTS

Baseline estimated MPG +/- sd was 220.0 +/- 82.0 mg/dl, mean A1c was 9.0 +/- 1.3%, and 1,5-AG was 5.0 +/- 4.1microg/ml. Estimated MPG did not differ between Caucasian and non-Caucasian groups. A1c was higher in Hispanics (9.4 +/- 1.4%; P < 0.001), Asians (9.2 +/- 1.4%; P < 0.01), and patients of other racial/ethnic groups (9.7 +/- 1.5%; P < 0.001) compared with Caucasians (8.9 +/- 1.2%). Paradoxically, 1,5-AG was higher for Asian (5.7 +/- 4.6 microg/ml) and African patients (6.2 +/- 5.4 microg/ml) vs. Caucasians (4.9 +/- 3.9 microg/ml) (P < 0.01). After adjusting for factors affecting glycemia, A1c was higher (all P <or= 0.002) in Hispanics, Asians, Africans, and patients of other racial/ethnic groups, and 1,5-AG was higher in Asian and African patients (P < 0.001) vs. Caucasians.

CONCLUSIONS

There were differences in A1c and 1,5-AG, but not MPG, among racial/ethnic groups. Comparisons of glycemia across racial/ethnic groups using these parameters may be problematic due to inherent biological variability and methodological issues.

HbA1c: how do we measure it and what does it mean?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Description of recent developments in the standardization of HbA1c measurement and interpretation of HbA1c results.

RECENT FINDINGS

HbA1c is extensively used in the management of patients with diabetes. The two major schemes to standardize HbA1c produce values that differ substantially. A prospective, multinational study revealed a linear correlation between HbA1c and average blood glucose. Some, but not all, assay methods are able to accurately measure HbA1c in individuals with common hemoglobin variants.

SUMMARY

Progress in standardization of methods for HbA1c measurement has significantly reduced variation among different methods. The improved accuracy could allow HbA1c to be used for screening and diagnosis of diabetes. A consensus document recommends that HbA1c be reported in both NGSP (%) and IFCC (mmol/mol) units. HbA1c results can be translated into estimated average glucose (eAG), which could be reported in addition to HbA1c.

Review of hemoglobin A(1c) in the management of diabetes

Hemoglobin HbA(1c) (A(1c)) has been used clinically since the 1980s as a test of glycemic control in individuals with diabetes. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) demonstrated that tight glycemic control, quantified by lower blood glucose and A(1c) levels, reduced the risk of the development of complications from diabetes. Subsequently, standardization of A(1c) measurement was introduced in different countries to ensure accuracy in A(1c) results. Recently, the International Federation of Clinical Chemists (IFCC) introduced a more precise measurement of A(1c) , which has gained international acceptance. However, if the IFCC A(1c) result is expressed as a percentage, it is lower than the current DCCT-aligned A(1c) result, which may lead to confusion and deterioration in diabetic control. Alternative methods of reporting have been proposed, including A(1c) -derived average glucose (ADAG), which derives an average glucose from the A(1c) result. Herein, we review A(1c) , the components involved in A(1c) formation, and the interindividual and assay variations that can lead to differences in A(1c) results, despite comparable glycemic control. We discuss the proposed introduction of ADAG as a surrogate for A(1c) reporting, review imprecisions that may result, and suggest alternative clinical approaches.

Ethnic variation in the correlation between random serum glucose concentration and glycated haemoglobin

AIMS

To determine if the relationship between serum glucose concentration and glycated haemoglobin is different between African-Americans and whites.

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional study comparing the association between glycated haemoglobin and serum glucose levels, based upon ethnicity. Two databases were evaluated: (i) 4215 African-American and 6359 white outpatients who had simultaneous glycated haemoglobin, random serum glucose and creatinine concentration measurements between 2000 and 2007 at the North Carolina Baptist Hospital and (ii) 1021 white and 312 African-American Diabetes Heart Study (DHS) participants.

RESULTS

In North Carolina Baptist Hospital clinic attendees, a given glycated haemoglobin was associated with higher serum glucose concentrations in African-Americans compared with whites. In a multivariate model with glycated haemoglobin as the outcome variable, racial differences remained significant after adjustment for serum glucose, age, gender and kidney function. For individuals with a serum glucose between 5.6 and 8.3 mmol/l, the glucose : glycated haemoglobin ratio was 1.03 +/- 0.16 mmol/l/% in white individuals and 0.99 +/- 0.17 mmol/l/% in African-Americans (P < 0.0001). For a glycated haemoglobin value of 7.0%, there was a 0.98-mmol/l difference in predicted serum glucose concentration in 50-year-old African-American men, relative to white. Results were replicated in the DHS, where in a best-fit linear model, after adjustment for glucose, African-American race was a significant predictor of glycated haemoglobin (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

African-Americans have higher glycated haemoglobin values at given serum glucose concentrations relative to whites. This finding may contribute to the observed difference in glycated haemoglobin values reported between these race groups.

Hemoglobin A1c: past, present and future

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) has been used for decades to monitor the control of glycemia in diabetes. Although HbA1cis currently undergoing a reassessment, and major developments have been underway in recent years, HbA1c is not recommended at present for diabetes screening or diagnosis. The objective of this review is to summarize the recent developments and to review a potential diagnostic role for HbA1c. Implementation of changes in HbA1c results and units of measurements have been suggested for the purpose of test standardization. These include lower reference ranges (by about 1.5-2 points) and measurement units expressed in percentage (%), as mg/dL (mmol/L) or mmol/mol (or a combination of these units). In diabetes screening and diagnosis, the current diagnostic guidelines use measurement of plasma glucose either fasting or after glucose load. These diagnostic methods have shortcomings warranting a potential diagnostic role for HbA1c. While recent developments in HbA1c methodologies are acknowledged, it is not yet known which changes will be implemented, and how soon. Given the recent literature supporting HbA1c diagnostic abilities, and given the shortcomings of the current guidelines, it is possible that a diagnostic role for HbA1c may be considered in future practice guidelines, globally. Very recently, the first of such recommendations has been proposed by an expert panel, as announced by the US Endocrine Society.

Approach to the patient with prediabetes

Prediabetes consists of impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance and is a significant risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes, microvascular, and macrovascular disease. The values used to define prediabetes are arbitrary, because prediabetes represents an intermediary category along the continuum from normal glucose levels and tolerance to overt hyperglycemia. The progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes occurs over many years, strong evidence to support intervention to delay the progression from prediabetes to diabetes. Large, randomized prospective studies with lifestyle intervention and/or various modes of pharmacotherapy have demonstrated successful delay of diabetes. Several issues in the management of prediabetes remain controversial, such as the role of pharmacotherapy and when to escalate treatment. This article will review some of the issues surrounding the identification and treatment of prediabetes, with an interpretation of the available data to help guide management.

Mitigating case mix factors by choice of glycemic control performance measure threshold

OBJECTIVE

Performance measures are tools for assessing quality of care but may be influenced by patient factors. We investigated how currently endorsed performance measures for glycemic control in diabetes may be influenced by case mix composition. We assessed differences in A1C performance measure threshold attainment by case mix factors for A1C >9% and examined how lowering the threshold to A1C >8% or >7% changed these differences.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using data from the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 843 adults self-reporting diabetes, we computed the mean difference in A1C threshold attainment of >9, >8, and >7% by various case mix factors. The mean difference is the average percentage point difference in threshold attainment for population groups compared with that for the overall population.

RESULTS

Diabetes medication was the only factor for which the difference in threshold attainment increased at lower thresholds, with mean differences of 5.7 percentage points at A1C >9% (reference), 10.1 percentage points at A1C >8% (P < 0.05), and 14.1 percentage points at A1C >7% (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

As 87% of U.S. adults have A1C <9%, a performance measure threshold of >9% will not drive major improvements in glycemic control. Lower thresholds do not exacerbate differences in threshold attainment for most factors. Reporting by diabetes medication use may compensate for heterogeneous case mix when a performance measure threshold of A1C >8% or lower is used.

The proposed terminology 'A(1c)-derived average glucose' is inherently imprecise and should not be adopted

The proposed use of a more precise standard for glycated (A(1c)) and non-glycated haemoglobin would lead to an A(1c) value, when expressed as a percentage, that is lower than that currently in use. One approach advocated to address the potential confusion that would ensue is to replace 'HbA(1c)' with a new term, 'A(1c)-derived average glucose.' We review evidence from several sources suggesting that A(1c) is, in fact, inherently imprecise as a measure of average glucose, so that the proposed terminology should not be adopted.

Frequency of HbA1c discordance in estimating blood glucose control

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

HbA1c is a trusted standard for monitoring glycemic control and predicting complications. However, there are emerging issues complicating the interpretation of HbA1c that the clinician caring for patients with diabetes needs to consider.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is increasing evidence of the potential for mismatches between HbA1c and other measures of glycemia which require some caution in HbA1c interpretation. We have attempted to characterize the nature of these discordances by developing the concept of the 'glycation gap' in which differences in protein glycation occurring in the intracellular space (HbA1c) versus in the extracellular space (measured as fructosamine) are compared. We have evidence that HbA1c results discordant from other measures of glycemic control may be secondary to previously unappreciated physiological variables, including erythrocyte lifespan, in hematologically normal individuals. We relate these findings to a number of HbA1c interpretation issues important for diabetes care: factors affecting hemoglobin glycation, relationship of HbA1c to glycemia, standardization of the HbA1c assay, and HbA1c relation to complications.

SUMMARY

There are an increasing number of clinical circumstances in which there are nuances to HbA1c interpretation such that standard norms for assessment of glycemic control or complication risk may need to be modified.

A new look at screening and diagnosing diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes is underdiagnosed. About one third of people with diabetes do not know they have it, and the average lag between onset and diagnosis is 7 yr. This report reconsiders the criteria for diagnosing diabetes and recommends screening criteria to make case finding easier for clinicians and patients.

PARTICIPANTS

R.M.B. invited experts in the area of diagnosis, monitoring, and management of diabetes to form a panel to review the literature and develop consensus regarding the screening and diagnosis of diabetes with particular reference to the use of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Participants met in open session and by E-mail thereafter. Metrika, Inc. sponsored the meeting.

EVIDENCE

A literature search was performed using standard search engines.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

The panel heard each member's discussion of the issues, reviewing evidence prior to drafting conclusions. Principal conclusions were agreed on, and then specific cut points were discussed in an iterative consensus process.

CONCLUSIONS

The main factors in support of using HbA1c as a screening and diagnostic test include: 1) HbA1c does not require patients to be fasting; 2) HbA1c reflects longer-term glycemia than does plasma glucose; 3) HbA1c laboratory methods are now well standardized and reliable; and 4) errors caused by nonglycemic factors affecting HbA1c such as hemoglobinopathies are infrequent and can be minimized by confirming the diagnosis of diabetes with a plasma glucose (PG)-specific test. Specific recommendations include: 1) screening standards should be established that prompt further testing and closer follow-up, including fasting PG of 100 mg/dl or greater, random PG of 130 mg/dl or greater, or HbA1c greater than 6.0%; 2) HbA1c of 6.5-6.9% or greater, confirmed by a PG-specific test (fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance test), should establish the diagnosis of diabetes; and 3) HbA1c of 7% or greater, confirmed by another HbA1c- or a PG-specific test (fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance test) should establish the diagnosis of diabetes. The recommendations are offered for consideration of the clinical community and interested associations and societies.

Proteomic profiling of nonenzymatically glycated proteins in human plasma and erythrocyte membranes

Nonenzymatic glycation of peptides and proteins by d-glucose has important implications in the pathogenesis of diabetes mellitus, particularly in the development of diabetic complications. In this work, we report the first proteomics-based characterization of nonenzymatically glycated proteins in human plasma and erythrocyte membranes from individuals with normal glucose tolerance, impaired glucose tolerance, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Phenylboronate affinity chromatography was used to enrich glycated proteins and glycated tryptic peptides from both human plasma and erythrocyte membranes. The enriched peptides were subsequently analyzed by liquid chromatography coupled with electron transfer dissociation-tandem mass spectrometry, resulting in the confident identification of 76 and 31 proteins from human plasma and erythrocyte membranes, respectively. Although most of the glycated proteins could be identified in samples from individuals with normal glucose tolerance, slightly higher numbers of glycated proteins and more glycation sites were identified in samples from individuals with impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Disparities in A1C levels between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white adults with diabetes: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Hispanics have higher rates of diabetes and diabetes-related complications than do non-Hispanic whites. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the difference between the mean values of A1C for these two groups.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We executed a PubMed search of articles published from 1993 through July 2007. Data sources included PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, the Cochrane Library, Combined Health Information Database, and Education Resources Information Center. Data on sample size, age, sex, A1C, geographical location, and study design were extracted. Cross-sectional data and baseline data from clinical trials and cohort studies for Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites with diabetes were included. Studies were excluded if they included individuals <18 years of age or patients with pre-diabetes or gestational diabetes.

RESULTS

A total of 495 studies were reviewed, of which 73 contained data on A1C for Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites, and 11 met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant mean difference (P < 0.0001) of -0.46 (95% CI -0.63 to -0.33), correlating to an approximately 0.5% higher A1C for Hispanics. Grouping studies by design (cross-sectional or cohort), method of data collection for A1C (chart review or blood sampling), and care type (managed or nonmanaged) yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, A1C was approximately 0.5% higher in Hispanic patients with diabetes than in non-Hispanic patients. Understanding the reasons for this disparity should be a focus for future research.