BACKGROUND: Standardization of the hemoglobin A1c (A1c) assay has led to its increasing utilization as a screening tool for the diagnosis of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in youth. However, significant A1c assay variability remains and has implications for clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To describe our center's experiences with A1c results in youth and to evaluate inter-method differences and their clinical implications. SUBJECTS: Seventy-five youth (aged 10-18 yr old), body mass index (BMI) ≥85th‰ participated. METHODS: Seventy-two participants had two A1c values performed on the same sample, one via immunoassay (DCA Vantage Analyzer, A1c1 ) and the other via high performance liquid chromatography (Bio-Rad Variant II, A1c2 ). Nineteen had A1c run on two immunoassay devices (A1c1 and Dimensions Vista, A1c3 ). RESULTS: Mean age of participants was 13.9 years, BMI% 97.89%, 33% male, 16% white, 21% black, and 61% Hispanic (H). Mean A1c1 was 5.68% ± 0.38 vs. a mean A1c2 of 5.73% ± 0.39, p = 0.049. Concordance in diabetes status between methods was achieved in 79% of subjects. Nineteen subjects with A1c3 results had testing performed an average of 22 ± 9 days prior to A1c1 . Mean A1c3 was 6.24% ± 0.4, compared to a mean A1c1 of 5.74% ± 0.31, (p < 0.0001). A1c1 was on average systematically -0.5 ± 0.28 lower compared to A1c3 . There was poor agreement in diabetes classification between A1c1 and A1c3 , with a concordance in classification between methods of only 36.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant inter-method A1c variability exists that impacts patient classification and treatment recommendations. In the screening of obese youth for diabetes, A1c results should be interpreted with caution.
BACKGROUND: Standardization of the hemoglobin A1c (A1c) assay has led to its increasing utilization as a screening tool for the diagnosis of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in youth. However, significant A1c assay variability remains and has implications for clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To describe our center's experiences with A1c results in youth and to evaluate inter-method differences and their clinical implications. SUBJECTS: Seventy-five youth (aged 10-18 yr old), body mass index (BMI) ≥85th‰ participated. METHODS: Seventy-two participants had two A1c values performed on the same sample, one via immunoassay (DCA Vantage Analyzer, A1c1 ) and the other via high performance liquid chromatography (Bio-Rad Variant II, A1c2 ). Nineteen had A1c run on two immunoassay devices (A1c1 and Dimensions Vista, A1c3 ). RESULTS: Mean age of participants was 13.9 years, BMI% 97.89%, 33% male, 16% white, 21% black, and 61% Hispanic (H). Mean A1c1 was 5.68% ± 0.38 vs. a mean A1c2 of 5.73% ± 0.39, p = 0.049. Concordance in diabetes status between methods was achieved in 79% of subjects. Nineteen subjects with A1c3 results had testing performed an average of 22 ± 9 days prior to A1c1 . Mean A1c3 was 6.24% ± 0.4, compared to a mean A1c1 of 5.74% ± 0.31, (p < 0.0001). A1c1 was on average systematically -0.5 ± 0.28 lower compared to A1c3 . There was poor agreement in diabetes classification between A1c1 and A1c3 , with a concordance in classification between methods of only 36.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant inter-method A1c variability exists that impacts patient classification and treatment recommendations. In the screening of obese youth for diabetes, A1c results should be interpreted with caution.
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: Joyce M Lee; Ashley Eason; Courtney Nelson; Nayla G Kazzi; Anne E Cowan; Beth A Tarini Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Arthur M Lee; Cyrelle R Fermin; Stephanie L Filipp; Matthew J Gurka; Mark D DeBoer Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Christine L Chan; Laura Pyle; Megan M Kelsey; Lindsey Newnes; Amy Baumgartner; Philip S Zeitler; Kristen J Nadeau Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 4.866
Authors: Christine L Chan; Laura Pyle; Lindsey Newnes; Kristen J Nadeau; Philip S Zeitler; Megan M Kelsey Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Pavithra Vijayakumar; Robert G Nelson; Robert L Hanson; William C Knowler; Madhumita Sinha Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Christine W Hockett; Pradeep A Praveen; Toan C Ong; Anandakumar Amutha; Scott P Isom; Elizabeth T Jensen; Ralph B D'Agostino; Richard F Hamman; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis; Jean M Lawrence; Catherine Pihoker; Michael G Kahn; Viswanathan Mohan; Nikhil Tandon; Dana Dabelea Journal: Pediatr Diabetes Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 3.409