2013 update on the worldwide standardization of the HbA1c measurement

Effects of diabetes definition on global surveillance of diabetes prevalence and diagnosis: a pooled analysis of 96 population-based studies with 331,288 participants

BACKGROUND

Diabetes has been defined on the basis of different biomarkers, including fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h plasma glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test (2hOGTT), and HbA1c. We assessed the effect of different diagnostic definitions on both the population prevalence of diabetes and the classification of previously undiagnosed individuals as having diabetes versus not having diabetes in a pooled analysis of data from population-based health examination surveys in different regions.

METHODS

We used data from 96 population-based health examination surveys that had measured at least two of the biomarkers used for defining diabetes. Diabetes was defined using HbA1c (HbA1c ≥6·5% or history of diabetes diagnosis or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs) compared with either FPG only or FPG-or-2hOGTT definitions (FPG ≥7·0 mmol/L or 2hOGTT ≥11·1 mmol/L or history of diabetes or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs). We calculated diabetes prevalence, taking into account complex survey design and survey sample weights. We compared the prevalences of diabetes using different definitions graphically and by regression analyses. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of diabetes diagnosis based on HbA1c compared with diagnosis based on glucose among previously undiagnosed individuals (ie, excluding those with history of diabetes or using insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs). We calculated sensitivity and specificity in each survey, and then pooled results using a random-effects model. We assessed the sources of heterogeneity of sensitivity by meta-regressions for study characteristics selected a priori.

FINDINGS

Population prevalence of diabetes based on FPG-or-2hOGTT was correlated with prevalence based on FPG alone (r=0·98), but was higher by 2-6 percentage points at different prevalence levels. Prevalence based on HbA1c was lower than prevalence based on FPG in 42·8% of age-sex-survey groups and higher in another 41·6%; in the other 15·6%, the two definitions provided similar prevalence estimates. The variation across studies in the relation between glucose-based and HbA1c-based prevalences was partly related to participants' age, followed by natural logarithm of per person gross domestic product, the year of survey, mean BMI, and whether the survey population was national, subnational, or from specific communities. Diabetes defined as HbA1c 6·5% or more had a pooled sensitivity of 52·8% (95% CI 51·3-54·3%) and a pooled specificity of 99·74% (99·71-99·78%) compared with FPG 7·0 mmol/L or more for diagnosing previously undiagnosed participants; sensitivity compared with diabetes defined based on FPG-or-2hOGTT was 30·5% (28·7-32·3%). None of the preselected study-level characteristics explained the heterogeneity in the sensitivity of HbA1c versus FPG.

INTERPRETATION

Different biomarkers and definitions for diabetes can provide different estimates of population prevalence of diabetes, and differentially identify people without previous diagnosis as having diabetes. Using an HbA1c-based definition alone in health surveys will not identify a substantial proportion of previously undiagnosed people who would be considered as having diabetes using a glucose-based test.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust, US National Institutes of Health.

Screening with HbA1c identifies only one in two individuals with diagnosis of prediabetes at oral glucose tolerance test: findings in a real-world Caucasian population

OBJECTIVE

Discordance between HbA1c and OGTT in screening pre-diabetes may occur because of lack of laboratory standardization, distinct underlying pathophysiological processes or different ethnicity. We evaluated HbA1c efficacy for screening OGTT-defined IFG and IGT conditions in a large Caucasian population using the newly revised IFCC protocol.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 501 consecutive subjects were screened for pre-diabetic conditions with OGTT with 75 g of glucose. Testing for HbA1c, lipid profile and fasting insulin levels was also performed. For detecting differences between continuous variables, ANOVA followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test was used. Logistic regression and ROC curve analysis were also performed for assessing HbA1c screening efficacy.

RESULTS

ROC curve analysis showed that optimal HbA1c cut-off for detecting IFG was 5.6 % (sensitivity of 78 % and specificity of 63 %), while for IGT, the optimal cut-off was 5.9 % (sensitivity of 46 % and specificity of 84 %), with AUCs < 0.8. Screening with HbA1c identified 53.4 % of the 193 patients with IFG and/or IGT diagnosed at OGTT. As regards surrogate markers of insulin resistance, we observed a trend towards higher values of HOMA-IR and lower QUICKI values in subjects with IFG than in those with IGT. Patients with pre-diabetes at both tests had similar values of HOMA and QUICKI, compared with those with altered OGTT only.

CONCLUSIONS

IFCC-aligned HbA1c assay proved scarcely effective in detecting IFG and/or IGT in a large Caucasian population, identifying only half of the patients with abnormal OGTT. Moreover, adding HbA1c screening to OGTT may be of little benefit in identifying subjects with a worse metabolic profile.

Is diabetes patients' knowledge of laboratory tests for monitoring blood glucose levels associated with better glycaemic control?

AIM

To determine if there is any difference in indices of glycaemic control between type-2 diabetes patients who knew the laboratory tests for monitoring blood glucose and their peers who did not know.

METHODS

Eighty-nine type-2 diabetes patients were studied after an overnight fast. The patients' bio-data, blood pressure, anthropometric indices and baseline biochemical parameters and glycated haemoglobin A₁c (HbA₁c) were measured. After a breakfast of stewed boiled rice, a 2-hour postprandial blood glucose was measured and a questionnaire administered.

RESULTS

The patients' mean ± SD HbA1c level was 8.6 ± 2.4% and none of the patients knew about HbA1c test for monitoring glycaemic control. Interestingly, patients who knew about fasting blood glucose test had significantly lower HbA₁c values than their counterparts who did not know (8.1 ± 2.2 vs. 9.1 ± 2.5%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Diabetes self-management education incorporating laboratory-based information may assist to prevent poor glycaemic control in developing countries with increasing reports of hyperglycaemic emergencies.

Prevalence of Diabetes and Prediabetes according to Fasting Plasma Glucose and HbA1c

BACKGROUND

Due to the inconvenience of performing oral glucose tolerance tests and day to day variability in glucose level, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) has been recommended by the American Diabetes Association as a method to diagnose diabetes. In addition, the Korean Diabetes Association has also recommended the use of HbA1c as a diagnostic test for diabetes. In this study, we evaluated the prevalence of diabetes according to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level only or the combination of FPG and HbA1c tests.

METHODS

Data from the 2011 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) were analyzed. Among 5,811 subjects aged 30 years or older, 5,020 were selected after excluding the data of fasting time <8 hours, missing values from fasting glucose or HbA1c level, previous diagnosis of diabetes made by physicians, or current use of antidiabetic medications. Diabetes was defined as FPG ≥126 mg/dL, previous diagnosis of diabetes made by a medical doctor, current use of antidiabetic medications, and/or HbA1c ≥6.5%. Prediabetes was defined as FPG of 100 to 125 mg/dL and/or HbA1c of 5.7% to 6.4%.

RESULTS

When we used FPG only, the prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes were 10.5% (men, 12.6%; women, 8.5%) and 19.3% (men, 23.8%; women, 14.9%), respectively. When HbA1c was included as a diagnostic test, the prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes increased to 12.4% (men, 14.5%; women, 10.4%) and 38.3% (men, 41%; women, 35.7%), respectively. Participants with HbA1c ≥6.5% and fasting glucose level <126 mg/dL were older and had lower estimated glomerular filtration rate.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that using fasting glucose level only may result in an underestimation of diabetes and prediabetes. HbA1c is an acceptable complementary diagnostic test for diabetes in Korean patients. However, national standardization is needed to order to use HbA1c as a diagnostic method of diabetes and prediabetes.