H Vernon Roohk1, Asad R Zaidi. 1. Department of Surgery, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California 92683, USA. vroohk@earthlink.net
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This article reviews glycated albumin (GA) as a potential intermediate-term glycation index to fill the gap between self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and hemoglobin A1c testing in diabetes management. The introduction gives an assessment of available short-, medium-, and long-term glycemic indicators. METHODOLOGIES AND UTILITY: Methods of GA measurement are summarized, and the variance of normal and diabetic GA values are discussed. Greatest uniformity in GA measurement is generally associated with immunoassay and the newer affinity chromatography methodologies utilized by reference laboratories. Utility of GA measurement includes its value as a marker for glycation, its substantial relationship to diabetes complications such as nephropathy and coronary artery disease, and as an unambiguous indicator of glycemic control in diabetes patients undergoing hemodialysis. Studies support the utility of GA in detecting short-term changes in glycemic control, and GA testing has been strongly recommended for gestational diabetes. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The results of a survey with mailings to over 3500 diabetes care professionals primarily in the United States are outlined and analyzed (margin of error: +/-6.5%, 95% confidence). Respondents strongly supported the need for a test for intermediate glycemic control as well as the utility of a rapid GA test as a monthly glycemic indicator. CONCLUSIONS: Such a test, as yet unavailable, could increase compliance and enhance empowerment among diabetes patients. It also has the potential to reduce the number of recommended SMBG tests, which may result in significant health care cost savings.
INTRODUCTION: This article reviews glycated albumin (GA) as a potential intermediate-term glycation index to fill the gap between self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and hemoglobin A1c testing in diabetes management. The introduction gives an assessment of available short-, medium-, and long-term glycemic indicators. METHODOLOGIES AND UTILITY: Methods of GA measurement are summarized, and the variance of normal and diabetic GA values are discussed. Greatest uniformity in GA measurement is generally associated with immunoassay and the newer affinity chromatography methodologies utilized by reference laboratories. Utility of GA measurement includes its value as a marker for glycation, its substantial relationship to diabetes complications such as nephropathy and coronary artery disease, and as an unambiguous indicator of glycemic control in diabetespatients undergoing hemodialysis. Studies support the utility of GA in detecting short-term changes in glycemic control, and GA testing has been strongly recommended for gestational diabetes. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The results of a survey with mailings to over 3500 diabetes care professionals primarily in the United States are outlined and analyzed (margin of error: +/-6.5%, 95% confidence). Respondents strongly supported the need for a test for intermediate glycemic control as well as the utility of a rapid GA test as a monthly glycemic indicator. CONCLUSIONS: Such a test, as yet unavailable, could increase compliance and enhance empowerment among diabetespatients. It also has the potential to reduce the number of recommended SMBG tests, which may result in significant health care cost savings.
Authors: David E Goldstein; Randie R Little; Rodney A Lorenz; John I Malone; David M Nathan; Charles M Peterson Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Kathleen M Dungan; John B Buse; Joseph Largay; Mary M Kelly; Eric A Button; Shuhei Kato; Steven Wittlin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: M Schütt; W Kern; U Krause; P Busch; A Dapp; R Grziwotz; I Mayer; J Rosenbauer; C Wagner; A Zimmermann; W Kerner; R W Holl Journal: Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 2.949
Authors: Qian Dong; Xinjian Yan; Lisa E Kilpatrick; Yuxue Liang; Yuri A Mirokhin; Jeri S Roth; Paul A Rudnick; Stephen E Stein Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Jeanethe Anguizola; Erin Debolt; D Suresh; David S Hage Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 3.205
Authors: Mateusz P Czub; Katarzyna B Handing; Barat S Venkataramany; David R Cooper; Ivan G Shabalin; Wladek Minor Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Tennille S Leak; Carl D Langefeld; Keith L Keene; Carla J Gallagher; Lingyi Lu; Josyf C Mychaleckyj; Stephen S Rich; Barry I Freedman; Donald W Bowden; Michèle M Sale Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 2.103