Screening and Prevention of Type 1 Diabetes: Where Are We?

A diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and the subsequent requirement for exogenous insulin treatment is associated with considerable acute and chronic morbidity and a substantial effect on patient quality of life. Importantly, a large body of work suggests that early identification of presymptomatic T1D can accurately predict clinical disease, and when paired with education and monitoring, can yield improved health outcomes. Furthermore, a growing cadre of effective disease-modifying therapies provides the potential to alter the natural history of early stages of T1D. In this mini review, we highlight prior work that has led to the current landscape of T1D screening and prevention, as well as challenges and next steps moving into the future of these rapidly evolving areas of patient care.

HbA1c and biomarkers of diabetes mellitus in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine: ten years after

Since its discovery in the late 1960s, HbA_1c has proven to be a major biomarker of diabetes mellitus survey and diagnosis. Other biomarkers have also been described using classical laboratory methods or more innovative, non-invasive ones. All biomarkers of diabetes, including the historical glucose assay, have well-controlled strengths and limitations, determining their indications in clinical use. They all request high quality preanalytical and analytical methodologies, necessitating a strict evaluation of their performances by external quality control assessment trials. Specific requirements are needed for point-of-care testing technologies. This general overview, which describes how old and new tools of diabetes mellitus biological survey have evolved over the last decade, has been built through the prism of papers published in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine during this period.

External quality assessment scheme for HbA1c assays in Thailand: A 5-year experience

Background

Thailand National External Quality Assessment Scheme (NEQAS) for HbA1c was established to evaluate the quality of HbA1c assays in Thailand in 2016.

Methods

HbA1c results from participating laboratories were compared to the target value assigned by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) reference system.

Results

The pass rates of participating laboratories during 2016–2020 were72–88%. The mean bias ranged between −0.19 and 0.20% of HbA1c. SD ranged from 0.30 to 1.08% of HbA1c. The overall coefficients of variation ranged from 4.46-15.66%.

Conclusions

Performance evaluation using IFCC assigned values indicated that different assay methods had an effect on HbA1c results. Participation in external quality assessment programs for HbA1c analysis is essential for improving laboratory quality and benefiting patient management.

•

This study summarized the performance evaluation of HbA1c assays using IFCC assigned values during a 5 year period in Thailand.

•

The most interesting finding was that the quality of HbA1c analysis varied depending on the assay method used.

•

This finding should encourage clinical laboratories, manufacturers, and proficiency testing providers to work together to improve laboratory quality.

Evaluation of interference from hemoglobin C, D, E and S traits on measurements of hemoglobin A1c by fifteen methods

BACKGROUND

Hemoglobin C, D Punjab, E or S trait can interfere with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) results. We assessed whether they affect results obtained with 15 current assay methods.

METHODS

Hemoglobin AA (HbAA), HbAC, HbAD Punjab, HbAE and HbAS samples were analyzed on 2 enzymatic, 4 ion-exchange HPLC and 9 immunoassay methods. Trinity Premier Hb9210 boronate affinity HPLC was the comparative method. An overall test of coincidence of least-squared linear regression lines was performed to determine if HbA1c results were statistically significantly different from those of HbAA samples. Clinically significant interference was defined as >6% difference from HbAA at 6 or 9% HbA1c compared to Premier Hb9210 using Deming regression.

RESULTS

All methods showed statistically significant effects for one or more variants. Clinically significant effects were observed for the Tosoh G11 variant mode (HbAD), Roche b 101 (HbAC and HbAE) and Siemens DCA Vantage (HbAE and HbAS). All other methods (Beckman Coulter B93009 and B00389 on DxC700AU, and Unicel DxC, Ortho Clinical Vitros 5.1, Roche cobas c 513, Siemens Dimension RxL and Vista, and Enzymatic on Advia and Atellica, Tosoh G8 5.24 and 5.28, and GX) showed no clinically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

A few methods showed interference from one or more variants. Laboratories need to be aware of potential HbA1c assay interferences.