Influence of serum proteins on fructosamine concentration in multiple myeloma

Glycated Albumin Versus HbA1c in the Evaluation of Glycemic Control in Patients With Diabetes and CKD

INTRODUCTION

It is inaccurate to assess blood glucose with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), and whether glycated albumin (GA) is better than HbA1c in these patients remains unclear.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE to July 2017 for studies that investigated the correlation between GA or HbA1c and the average glucose levels (AG) relevant to this theme. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 and Stata12.0. The outcome was the correlation coefficient between GA or HbA1c and AG. For the first time, we made a comparison of GA and HbA1c in different CKD stages.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies with 3928 patients were included. Early stages of CKD refer to CKD stage 1 to 3. Advanced CKD refer to CKD stage 4 and 5 including patients receiving dialysis. The meta-analysis suggested that in early stages of CKD, the pooled R between GA and AG was 0.61 (95% CI = 0.49-0.73) and 0.71 (95% CI = 0.55-0.87) for HbA1c (P > 0.05). In advanced CKD patients, the pooled R between GA and AG was 0.57 (95% CI = 0.52-0.62), and 0.49 (95% CI = 0.45-0.52) for HbA1c (P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

GA is superior to HbA1c in assessing blood glucose control in diabetes patients with advanced CKD.

Indicators of glycemic control in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus and pregnant women with diabetes mellitus

Recently, it has become clear that mild abnormal glucose tolerance increases the incidence of perinatal maternal-infant complications, and so the definition and diagnostic criteria of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been changed. Therefore, in patients with GDM and pregnant women with diabetes mellitus, even stricter glycemic control than before is required to reduce the incidence of perinatal maternal-infant complications. Strict glycemic control cannot be attained without an indicator of glycemic control; this review proposes a reliable indicator. The gold standard indicator of glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus is hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); however, we have demonstrated that HbA1c does not reflect glycemic control accurately during pregnancy because of iron deficiency. It has also become clear that glycated albumin, another indicator of glycemic control, is not influenced by iron deficiency and therefore might be a better indicator of glycemic control in patients with GDM and pregnant women with diabetes mellitus. However, large-population epidemiological studies are necessary in order to confirm our proposal. Here, we outline the most recent findings about the indicators of glycemic control during pregnancy including fructosamine and 1,5-anhydroglucitol.

1,5-Anhydroglucitol and glycated albumin in glycemia

The main purpose of treating diabetes is to prevent the onset and the progression of diabetic chronic complications. Since the mechanism of onset of chronic complications is still not well understood, the main strategy to achieve this purpose is to bring the plasma glucose level in diabetic patients as close as possible to that in healthy subjects and try to maintain good glycemic control over the long term. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), glycated albumin (GA), fructosamine, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5 AG) are used for evaluating glycemic control. At present, HbA1c is widely used as a gold standard index for glycemic control in clinical practice. While HbA1c reflects the long-term glycemic control state (for the past 1-2 months), it does not accurately reflect glycemic control in the clinical state in which glycemic control improves or deteriorates in the short-term. It is also known that HbA1c in patients with hematological disorders such as anemia and variant hemoglobin shows an abnormal value. In addition, HbA1c mainly reflects the mean plasma glucose but does not reflect the postprandial plasma glucose. On the other hand, GA and 1,5-AG reflect intermediate- or short-term glycemic control and are not influenced by hemoglobin metabolism. While 1,5-AG is known to reflect the postprandial plasma glucose, it was shown recently that GA also reflects the postprandial plasma glucose. This chapter summarizes the measurement methods, usage methods, evidence, and problems concerning such indices for glycemic control.

Glycated albumin; clinical usefulness

The main purpose of treating diabetes is to prevent the onset and progression of diabetic chronic complications. Since the mechanism of onset of chronic complications is still not well understood, the main strategy to achieve this purpose is to bring plasma glucose levels as close as possible to those in healthy subjects and maintain good glycemic control over the long term. Since glycation among various proteins is increased in diabetic patients compared with non-diabetic subjects, glycated protein can be used as a glycemic control indicator. Currently, among these glycated proteins, HbA1c is used as the gold standard of glycemic control indicators. However, HbA1c does not accurately reflect the actual status of glycemic control in some conditions with rapid changes in glycemic control and in patients with anemia (hemolytic anemia, iron deficiency anemia, etc.) and variant hemoglobin. In comparison, glycated albumin (GA) more accurately reflects changes in plasma glucose during the short term and postprandial plasma glucose. GA also reflects glycemic control in patients with hematologic disorders whereas GA does not reflect glycemic control in patients with disorder of albumin metabolism. GA is a glycemic control indicator which overcomes most of the disadvantages of HbA1c, and could be therefore expected to replace HbA1c as the standard glycemic control indicator in the near future. However, it is necessary to accumulate more evidences from large research studies on the effective directions for measuring GA.

Protein precipitation as a possible important pitfall in the clinical chemistry analysis of blood samples containing monoclonal immunoglobulins: 2 case reports and a review of the literature

Two case reports are presented, both illustrating an analytical interference caused by monoclonal immunoglobulins. Falsely low results were obtained in the routine analysis of glucose, CRP and HDL-cholesterol. When analysing samples containing paraproteins, various problems can be encountered in the clinical laboratory: next to the antibody effect, pseudohyponatraemia, hyperviscosity, cryoglobulinaemia and gel formation have to be taken into account. In our two cases the interference was caused by paraprotein precipitation, causing an increased turbidity and an apparent increase of light absorbance at every wavelength due to light scattering, including the wavelengths used in the clinical chemistry assays. We review the literature on this sometimes overlooked interference in photometric/turbidimetric assays. This reaction is based on the insolubility of these proteins in specific physico-chemical circumstances in which many variables are involved, among others: pH and ionic strength, presence of preservatives and surfactants in the assays, pI and other specific properties of the monoclonal immunoglobulins. The complexity of the problem makes predicting or preventing this probably infrequent interference usually impossible. This artifact can cause both false positive and false negative results in multiple parameters (e.g. bilirubin, creatinine, iron, urea, uric acid), the most frequently reported analyte being phosphate. The Sia water test (Sia euglobulin precipitation test) can provide a first clue to a paraprotein aggregation; confirmation can be obtained by observing the time/ absorbance curves of the analysis, performing the test manually or setting up a serial dilution of the sample. The problem can be solved by avoiding the presence of the proteins in the assay, performing the analysis using an alternative method or diluting out the interference. Both laboratorians and clinicians should be aware of interferences in the clinical laboratory since the clinical consequences could be important.