Is the Current Cut Point for Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) Correct for Diagnosing Diabetes Mellitus in Premenopausal Women? Evidence to Inform Discussion

INTRODUCTION

Women are on average diagnosed with diabetes mellitus at later age than men but have higher mortality. As the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is primarily based on HbA1c, the use of a non-specific reference range and cut point for diabetes mellitus that does not account for gender differences in diabetes could potentially lead to underdiagnosis of diabetes mellitus in women and missed opportunities for intervention. We investigated whether a contributing factor to the later diagnosis in women may be a difference in distribution of HbA1c in premenopausal women versus men of the same age by comparing HbA1c values in men and women across multiple sites in the UK.

METHODS

We analysed the HbA1c levels of 146,907 individuals who underwent single testing only and had HbA1c ≤ 50 mmol/mol between 2012 and 2019 in one laboratory (cohort 1). This was replicated in six laboratories with 938,678 individuals tested between 2019 and 2021 (cohort 2).

RESULTS

In cohort 1, women < 50 years old had an HbA1c distribution markedly lower than that in men by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol (p < 0.0001), while the difference in the distribution of HbA1c for individuals aged ≥ 50 years was less pronounced (mean difference 0.9 mmol/mol, p < 0.0001). For individuals under the age of 50, HbA1c in women lagged by up to 10 years compared to men. Similar findings were found in cohort 2. We estimated an additional 17% (n = 34,953) of undiagnosed women aged < 50 years in England and Wales could be reclassified to have diabetes mellitus, which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years.

CONCLUSION

The HbA1c cut point for diagnosis of diabetes mellitus may need to be re-evaluated in women under the age of 50 years. Early identification of diabetes mellitus in women has the potential to improve women's health outcomes in the longer term.

Serum cortisol assay performance following the 1 mg overnight dexamethasone suppression test

BACKGROUND

The 1 mg overnight dexamethasone suppression test (ONDST) is recommended for the differential diagnosis of Cushing's syndrome and the investigation of adrenal incidentalomas. Despite documented variation in serum cortisol immunoassay performance, little has been published regarding its effect on the ONDST.

AIMS

Assess the performance of three immunoassay platforms (Roche Elecsys II, Abbott Alinity & Siemens Centaur) when compared to a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method.

METHODS

Samples (n = 77) sent to the laboratory as part of an ONDST were retrieved prior to disposal, anonymized, and analysed on all platforms. Samples with factors impacting immunoassay analysis quality were excluded. Results were statistically compared to an LC-MS/MS method that previously demonstrated excellent comparability to a candidate reference method.

RESULTS

The Roche gen II showed a mean bias of -2.4 nmol/L and a Passing-Bablok fit of y = -0.9 + 0.97x. This was not affected by sex. The Abbott showed a mean bias -18.8 nmol/L, and a fit of y = -11.3 + 0.88x. This bias was -20.7 nmol/L in females versus -17.2 nmol/L in males. The Siemens had a mean bias of 2.3 nmol/L and a fit of y = 1.4 + 1.07x. This bias was 5.7 nmol/L in males versus -1.0 nmol/L in females.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should be aware of the method-dependent variation that exists within serum cortisol analysis during the ONDSTs. Roche and Siemens aligned more closely with LC-MS/MS while the Abbot may cause a reduction in ONDST sensitivity. This data supports assay-specific cut-offs for the ONDST.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on HbA1c Testing: Prioritization of High-Risk Cases and Impact of Social Deprivation

INTRODUCTION

Studies show that the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected people with diabetes and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. During the first 6 months of the UK lockdown, > 6.6 M glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) tests were missed. We now report variability in the recovery of HbA1c testing, and its association with diabetes control and demographic characteristics.

METHODS

In a service evaluation, we examined HbA1c testing across ten UK sites (representing 9.9% of England's population) from January 2019 to December 2021. We compared monthly requests from April 2020 to those in the equivalent 2019 months. We examined effects of (i) HbA1c level, (ii) between-practice variability, and (iii) practice demographics.

RESULTS

In April 2020, monthly requests dropped to 7.9-18.1% of 2019 volumes. By July 2020, testing had recovered to 61.7-86.9% of 2019 levels. During April-June 2020, we observed a 5.1-fold variation in the reduction of HbA1c testing between general practices (12.4-63.8% of 2019 levels). There was evidence of limited prioritization of testing for patients with HbA1c > 86 mmol/mol during April-June 2020 (4.6% of total tests vs. 2.6% during 2019). Testing in areas with the highest social disadvantage was lower during the first lockdown (April-June 2020; trend test p < 0.001) and two subsequent periods (July-September and October-December 2020; both p < 0.001). By February 2021, testing in the highest deprivation group had a cumulative fall in testing of 34.9% of 2019 levels versus 24.6% in those in the lowest group.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight that the pandemic response had a major impact on diabetes monitoring and screening. Despite limited test prioritization in the > 86 mmol/mol group, this failed to acknowledge that those in the 59-86 mmol/mol group require consistent monitoring to achieve the best outcomes. Our findings provide additional evidence that those from poorer backgrounds were disproportionately disadvantaged. Healthcare services should redress this health inequality.

Variability in Test Interval Is Linked to Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) Trajectory over Time

AIMS

We previously showed that the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing frequency links to diabetes control. Here, we examine the effect of variability in test interval, adjusted for the frequency, on change in HbA1c (ΔHbA1c). Materials & Methods. HbA1c results were collected on 83,872 people with HbA1c results at baseline and 5 years (±3 months) later and ≥6 tests during this period. We calculated the standard deviation (SD) of test interval for each individual and examined the link between deciles of SD of the test interval and ΔHbA1c level, stratified by baseline HbA1c.

RESULTS

In general, less variability in testing frequency (more consistent monitoring) was associated with better diabetes control. This was most evident with moderately raised baseline HbA1c levels (7.0-9.0% (54-75 mmol/mol)). For example, in those with a starting HbA1c of 7.0-7.5% (54-58 mmol/mol), the lowest SD decile was associated with little change in HbA1c over 5 years, while for those with the highest decile, HbA1c rose by 0.4-0.6% (4-6 mmol/mol; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that the association was independent of the age/sex/hospital site. Subanalysis suggested that the effect was most pronounced in those aged <65 years with baseline HbA1c of 7.0-7.5% (54-58 mmol/mol). We observed a 6.7-fold variation in the proportion of people in the top-three SD deciles across general practices.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that the consistency of testing interval, not the just number of tests/year, is important in maintaining diabetes control, especially in those with moderately raised HbA1c levels. Systems to improve regularity of HbA1c testing are therefore needed, especially given the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes monitoring.

Can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety?

BACKGROUND

Lithium is viewed as the first-line long-term treatment for prevention of relapse in people with bipolar disorder.

AIMS

This study examined factors associated with the likelihood of maintaining serum lithium levels within the recommended range and explored whether the monitoring interval could be extended in some cases.

METHOD

We included 46 555 lithium rest requests in 3371 individuals over 7 years from three UK centres. Using lithium results in four categories (<0.4 mmol/L; 0.40-0.79 mmol/L; 0.80-0.99 mmol/L; ≥1.0 mmol/L), we determined the proportion of instances where lithium results remained stable or switched category on subsequent testing, considering the effects of age, duration of lithium therapy and testing history.

RESULTS

For tests within the recommended range (0.40-0.99 mmol/L categories), 84.5% of subsequent tests remained within this range. Overall, 3 monthly testing was associated with 90% of lithium results remaining within range, compared with 85% at 6 monthly intervals. In cases where the lithium level in the previous 12 months was on target (0.40-0.79 mmol/L; British National Formulary/National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria), 90% remained within the target range at 6 months. Neither age nor duration of lithium therapy had any significant effect on lithium level stability. Levels within the 0.80-0.99 mmol/L category were linked to a higher probability of moving to the ≥1.0 mmol/L category (10%) compared with those in the 0.4-0.79 mmol/L group (2%), irrespective of testing frequency.

CONCLUSION

We propose that for those who achieve 12 months of lithium tests within the 0.40-0.79 mmol/L range, the interval between tests could increase to 6 months, irrespective of age. Where lithium levels are 0.80-0.99 mmol/L, the test interval should remain at 3 months. This could reduce lithium test numbers by 15% and costs by ~$0.4 m p.a.

Paired sensitivity analysis of four SARS-CoV-2 serological immunoassays in a longitudinal cohort of convalescent hospital staff

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 serological testing has seen extensive academic and clinical use from investigating correlates of immunity to seroprevalence, convalescent plasma and vaccine trials. Interpretation of these studies will depend on robust validation of the longitudinal sensitivities of these assays, especially in the context of mild disease which makes up the majority of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caseload.

METHODS

Hospital staff (n = 94) returning to work following polymerase chain reaction confirmed COVID-19 were offered antibody testing to assist with laboratory verification. Initial specimens were collected at median 29 days post-symptom onset and run on the Roche, Abbott, Siemens and DiaSorin platforms. Re-sampling occurred at median 142 days from a subset of the initial cohort (n = 62) that had volunteered to provide further serum samples to assist in longitudinal sensitivity analysis. Samples that were not run across all four platforms were excluded from analysis.

RESULTS

Comparative sensitivity analysis was conducted on 89/94 of the initial specimens and 55/62 of the repeat specimens. Sensitivity at initial sampling ranged from 78 to 87% across platforms. At re-sampling, sensitivities were: 100% (Roche), 45% (Abbott), 100% (Siemens), and 80% (DiaSorin). Paired analysis using the longitudinal cohort (n = 55) demonstrated stable or increasing median assay values on three platforms, with a clear reduction seen only on the Abbott platform (4.78 to 1.34) with corresponding sensitivity drop-off (81.8% to 45.4%).

CONCLUSION

The Abbott assay demonstrated sensitivity drop-off and decrease in median assay signal below detection threshold at four to five months. This has implications on the interpretation and design of future studies.

Serum lithium test requesting across three UK regions: an evaluation of adherence to monitoring guidelines

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is the fourth most common mental health condition, affecting ~ 1% of UK adults. Lithium is an effective treatment for prevention of relapse and hospital admission, and is widely recommended as a first-line treatment. We previously showed in other areas that laboratory testing patterns are variable with sub-optimal conformity to guidance. We therefore examined lithium results and requesting patterns relative to monitoring recommendations.

METHODS

Data on serum lithium levels and intervals between requests were extracted from Clinical Biochemistry laboratory information systems at the University Hospitals of North Midlands, Salford Royal Foundation Trust and Pennine Acute Hospitals from 2012 to 2018 (46,555 requests; 3371 individuals). Data were examined with respect to region/source of request, age and sex.

RESULTS

Across all sites, lithium levels on many requests were outside the recommended UK therapeutic range (0.4-0.99 mmol/L); 19.2% below the range and 6.1% above the range (median [Li]: 0.60 mmol/L). A small percentage were found at the extremes (3.2% at < 0.1 mmol/L, 1.0% at ≥1.4 mmol/L). Most requests were from general practice (56.3%) or mental health units (34.4%), though those in the toxic range (≥1.4 mmol/L) were more likely to be from secondary care (63.9%). For requesting intervals, there was a distinct peak at 12 weeks, consistent with guidance for those stabilised on lithium therapy. There was no peak at 6 months, as recommended for those aged < 65 years on unchanging therapy, though re-test intervals in this age group were more likely to be longer. There was a peak at 0-7 days, reflecting those requiring closer monitoring (e.g. treatment initiation, toxicity). However, for those with initial lithium concentrations within the BNF range (0.4-0.99 mmol/L), 69.4% of tests were requested outside expected testing frequencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed: (a) lithium levels are often maintained at the lower end of the recommended therapeutic range, (b) patterns of lithium results and testing frequency were comparable across three UK sites with differing models of care and, (c) re-test intervals demonstrate a noticeable peak at the recommended 3-monthly, but not at 6-monthly intervals. Many tests were repeated outside expected frequencies, indicating the need for measures to minimise inappropriate testing.