The accuracy of Glycosylated Hemoglobin a Index Measurement in Medical Laboratories in Isfahan City

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Immunology MSC, Isfahan Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 Epidemiology PhD, Isfahan Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

3 Biochemistry MSC, Isfahan, Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

4 Microbiology PhD, Department of Microbiology, Nosocomial Infection Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

5 Endocrinology Professor, Isfahan Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: Today, Glycosylated hemoglobin A (HbA1c) is used as a diagnostic criterion for diabetes and long-term monitoring of plasma glucose level. Therefore, it is essential that HbA1c be measured accurately. The aim of this study was to investigate the common HbA1c index measurement methods in laboratories in Isfahan and compare the accuracy of their results with the reference method.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, three blood sample of a volunteer had been sent to 37 laboratories. Among them, two laboratories measured this parameter by HPLC method and were considered as a reference. For each laboratory, the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated. One-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc test were used to compare the results of different methods of measuring HbA1c with the reference method.
Findings: Comparison of the laboratories results with the reference method showed that 60% of the laboratories reported the percent of HbA1c index beyond the permitted range with an unfavorable report. The mean and standard deviation and CV index range were 2.8 and 4.4, (from 0.65 to 25.18%), respectively. Comparison of the different methods results with the reference method showed that capillary electrophoresis and immunoturbidometry and enzymatics had good accuracy. The highest accuracy was related to capillary electrophoresis. The methods with the lowest measurement accuracy were nephelometry and column chromatography, respectively.
Conclusion: Despite the standardization of methods for measuring HbA1c, it was noted that different results of the same blood sample was reported. In addition to the High Performance Liquid Chromatography method, the capillary electrophoresis seems to provide a more acceptable result than other methods.

Keywords

References

  1. Selby NM, Taal MW. An updated overview of diabetic nephropathy: Diagnosis, prognosis, treatment goals and latest guidelines. Diabetes Obes Metab 2020; 22(Suppl 1): 3-15.
  2. Avogaro A, Fadini GP. Microvascular complications in diabetes: a growing concern for cardiologists. Int J Cardiol 2019; 291: 29-35.
  3. Park J, Zhang P, Wang Y, Zhou X, Look KA, Bigman ET. High out-of-pocket health care cost burden among medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, 1999-2017. Diabetes Care 2021; 44(8): 1797-804.
  4. Khamseh ME, Sepanlou SG, Hashemi-Madani N, Joukar F, Mehrparvar AH, Faramarzi E, et al. Nationwide prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes and associated risk factors among Iranian adults: analysis of data from PERSIAN cohort study. Diabetes Therapy 2021; 12(11): 2921-38.
  5. Mirzaei M, Rahmaninan M, Mirzaei M, Nadjarzadeh A, Dehghani Tafti AA. Epidemiology of diabetes mellitus, pre-diabetes, undiagnosed and uncontrolled diabetes in Central Iran: results from Yazd health study. BMC Public Health 2020; 20(1): 166.
  6. Little RR, Rohlfing CL, Sacks DB. Status of hemoglobin A1c measurement and goals for improvement: from chaos to order for improving diabetes care. Clin Chem 2011; 57(2): 205-14.
  7. English E, Lenters-Westra E. HbA1c method performance: the great success story of global standardization. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2018; 55(6): 408-19.
  8. Evans M, Welsh Z, Ells S, Seibold A. The impact of flash glucose monitoring on glycaemic control as measured by HbA1c: a meta-analysis of clinical trials and real-world observational studies. Diabetes Ther 2020; 11(1): 83-95.
  9. Su JB, Zhao LH, Zhang XL, Cai HL, Huang HY, Xu F, et al. HbA1c variability and diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetic patients. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2018; 17(1): 47.
  10. American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care 2021; 44(Suppl 1): S15-33.
  11. Gupta S, Chauhan N, Jain U. Laboratory diagnosis of HbA1c: a review. J Nanomed Res 2017; 5(4): 00120.
  12. Halwachs-Baumann G, Katzensteiner S, Schnedl W, Purstner P, Pieber T, Wilders-Truschnig M. Comparative evaluation of three assay systems for automated determination of hemoglobin A1c. Clin Chem 1997; 43(3): 511-7.
  13. Hawkins RC. Comparison of four point-of-care HbA1c analytical systems against central laboratory
    Singapore Med J 2003; 44(1): 8-11.
  14. Turpeinen U, Karjalainen U, Stenman UH. Three assays for glycohemoglobin compared. Clin Chem 1995; 41(2): 191-5.
  15. Karami A, Baradaran A. Comparative evaluation of three different methods for HbA1c measurement with High-performance liquid chromatography in diabetic patients. Adv Biomed Res 2014; 3: 94.
  16. Roth J, Müller N, Lehmann T, Böer K, Löbel S, Pum J, et al. Comparison of HbA1c measurements using 3 methods in 75 patients referred to one outpatient department. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2018; 126(1): 23-6.
  17. Jalali MT, Shahbazian HB, Afsharmanesh MR, Mousavi Dehmordi R, Saki A. Evaluation of accuracy, precision and agreement of five Hba1c measurement methods with HPLC reference method. Med Lab J 2016; 10(2): 58-64.
  18. Razi F, Rahnamaye Farzami M, Ebrahimi SA, Nahid M, Gholi Bigdeli M, Sheidaei A, et al. Comparative analytical performance of various HbA1c assays in Iran. Arch Iran Med 2016; 19(6): 414-9.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 40, Issue 673
1st Week, August
July and August 2022
Pages 368-374

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 31 July 2022
  • Accept Date: 31 July 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics