BACKGROUND: Point-of-care instruments for the measurement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) may improve the glycemic control of people with diabetes by providing a rapid result if the performance of the instruments used is acceptable. A 0.5% HbA1c difference between successive results is considered a clinically relevant change. With this in mind, the In2it from Bio-Rad and the DCA Vantage from Siemens were evaluated according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocols. METHODS: The CLSI protocols EP-5 and EP-9 were applied to investigate precision, accuracy, and bias. The bias was compared with three certified secondary reference measurement procedures. Differences between capillary and venous blood were investigated by an end-user group consisting of nurse practitioners at a diabetes care center. RESULTS: At HbA1c levels of 5.1 and 11.2%, total coefficients of variation (CV) for the In2it were 4.9 and 3.3%, respectively, and for the DCA Vantage were 1.7 to 1.8% and 3.7 to 5.5% depending on the lot number of the cartridges. Method comparisons showed significant lot number-dependent results for the In2it and the DCA Vantage compared with the three reference methods. No overall difference was observed between capillary and venous blood for both methods. CONCLUSION: Performance results of the In2it and the DCA Vantage showed variable and lot number-dependent results. To maintain the interlaboratory CV of 5% for HbA1c, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments rules for waived point-of-care instruments should be revised. An obligation for participating in external quality schemes and taking adequate action should be considered for POC instruments that perform poorly. 2009 Diabetes Technology Society.
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care instruments for the measurement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) may improve the glycemic control of people with diabetes by providing a rapid result if the performance of the instruments used is acceptable. A 0.5% HbA1c difference between successive results is considered a clinically relevant change. With this in mind, the In2it from Bio-Rad and the DCA Vantage from Siemens were evaluated according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocols. METHODS: The CLSI protocols EP-5 and EP-9 were applied to investigate precision, accuracy, and bias. The bias was compared with three certified secondary reference measurement procedures. Differences between capillary and venous blood were investigated by an end-user group consisting of nurse practitioners at a diabetes care center. RESULTS: At HbA1c levels of 5.1 and 11.2%, total coefficients of variation (CV) for the In2it were 4.9 and 3.3%, respectively, and for the DCA Vantage were 1.7 to 1.8% and 3.7 to 5.5% depending on the lot number of the cartridges. Method comparisons showed significant lot number-dependent results for the In2it and the DCA Vantage compared with the three reference methods. No overall difference was observed between capillary and venous blood for both methods. CONCLUSION: Performance results of the In2it and the DCA Vantage showed variable and lot number-dependent results. To maintain the interlaboratory CV of 5% for HbA1c, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments rules for waived point-of-care instruments should be revised. An obligation for participating in external quality schemes and taking adequate action should be considered for POC instruments that perform poorly. 2009 Diabetes Technology Society.
Authors: Earle W Holmes; Cağatay Erşahin; Geri J Augustine; Gerald A Charnogursky; Margie Gryzbac; Joanne V Murrell; Kathleen M McKenna; Fadi Nabhan; Stephen E Kahn Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: B Guerci; D Durain; H Leblanc; J C Rouland; P Passa; T Godeau; B Charbonnel; J C Mathieu Daude; H Boniface; L Monnier; F Dauchy; G Slama; P Drouin Journal: Diabetes Metab Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 6.041
Authors: Christopher D Miller; Catherine S Barnes; Lawrence S Phillips; David C Ziemer; Daniel L Gallina; Curtiss B Cook; Sandra D Maryman; Imad M El-Kebbi Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: C R Alleyn; L M B Laffel; L K Volkening; B J Anderson; T R Nansel; T Wysocki; J Weissberg-Benchell Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Adenike Enikuomehin; Babatope A Kolawole; Olubukunmi D Soyoye; Joseph O Adebayo; Rosemary T Ikem Journal: Afr Health Sci Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 0.927