BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) testing of HbA1c is used as a time-efficient tool to improve treatment and management planning for diabetes in the clinic setting. HbA1c values are the basis for monitoring ongoing response to treatment and to make adjustments to diabetes therapy. Yet, there is ongoing controversy as to the accuracy of POC assays. Diabetes is a lifelong disease, so comparability of results over a long period of time is needed to follow the response to treatment. METHODS: We compared the Afinion™ automated boronate affinity assay and the DCA Vantage immunoassay-based POC techniques to the Tosoh G8 and Bio-Rad Variant II ion-exchange high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) central laboratory methods in a study lasting 3 years. College of American Pathology Survey results and American Proficiency testing were utilized to assess the external validity of the POC techniques. RESULTS: Despite high correlations among the 4 techniques, there were significant and variable differences obtained over time. The Biorad values varied from 0.1 to 0.4% higher than the Afinion values. The DCA results were usually higher than the Afinion values, but fell below the Afinion results in the last 6 months of our study. Both POC techniques gave systematically lower values than the Tosoh measurements, and both the POC and the central laboratory measurements showed variable differences from the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program values over the duration of this study. CONCLUSIONS: All who rely on POC methods as well as on central laboratory measurement of HbA1c must understand the potential limitations of these assays. The assessment of diabetes blood sugar control should proceed from the evaluation of HbA1c combined with review of plasma glucose and of self-monitored blood glucose values.
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) testing of HbA1c is used as a time-efficient tool to improve treatment and management planning for diabetes in the clinic setting. HbA1c values are the basis for monitoring ongoing response to treatment and to make adjustments to diabetes therapy. Yet, there is ongoing controversy as to the accuracy of POC assays. Diabetes is a lifelong disease, so comparability of results over a long period of time is needed to follow the response to treatment. METHODS: We compared the Afinion™ automated boronate affinity assay and the DCA Vantage immunoassay-based POC techniques to the Tosoh G8 and Bio-Rad Variant II ion-exchange high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) central laboratory methods in a study lasting 3 years. College of American Pathology Survey results and American Proficiency testing were utilized to assess the external validity of the POC techniques. RESULTS: Despite high correlations among the 4 techniques, there were significant and variable differences obtained over time. The Biorad values varied from 0.1 to 0.4% higher than the Afinion values. The DCA results were usually higher than the Afinion values, but fell below the Afinion results in the last 6 months of our study. Both POC techniques gave systematically lower values than the Tosoh measurements, and both the POC and the central laboratory measurements showed variable differences from the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program values over the duration of this study. CONCLUSIONS: All who rely on POC methods as well as on central laboratory measurement of HbA1c must understand the potential limitations of these assays. The assessment of diabetesblood sugar control should proceed from the evaluation of HbA1c combined with review of plasma glucose and of self-monitored blood glucose values.
Authors: John R Petersen; Jane B Finley; Anthony O Okorodudu; Amin A Mohammad; James J Grady; Mandeep Bajaj Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 19.112
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: Viviane Leca; Zouher Ibrahim; Elise Lombard-Pontou; Marie Maraninchi; Régis Guieu; Henri Portugal; René Valéro; Bernard Vialettes Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Elizabeth B Lynch; Joselyn Williams; Elizabeth Avery; Melissa M Crane; Brittney Lange-Maia; Christy Tangney; LaDawne Jenkins; Sheila A Dugan; Erin E Emery-Tiburcio; Steve M Epting Journal: J Community Health Date: 2020-02
Authors: Dana Elena Gavan; Alexandru Gavan; Cosmina Ioana Bondor; Bogdan Florea; Frank Lee Bowling; Georgeta Victoria Inceu; Liora Colobatiu Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Ayo P Doumatey; Hermon Feron; Kenneth Ekoru; Jie Zhou; Adebowale Adeyemo; Charles N Rotimi Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 8.180