Search

Background: Point-of-care (POC) hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing has advantages over laboratory testing, but some questions have remained regarding the accuracy and precision of these methods. The accuracy and the precision of the POC Afinion™ HbA1c Dx test were investigated. Methods: Samples spanning the assay range were collected from prospectively enrolled subjects at three clinical sites. The accuracy of the POC test using fingerstick and venous whole blood samples was estimated via correlation and bias with respect to values obtained by an NGSP secondary reference laboratory (SRL). The precision of the POC test using fingerstick samples was estimated from duplicate results by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV) and standard deviation (SD), and separated into its components using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The precision of the POC test using venous blood was evaluated from samples run in four replicates on each of three test cartridge lots, twice per day for 10 consecutive days. The SD and CV by study site and overall were calculated. Results: Across the assay range, POC test results from fingerstick and venous whole blood samples were highly correlated with results from the NGSP SRL ( r = .99). The mean bias was −0.021% HbA1c (−0.346% relative) using fingerstick samples and −0.005% HbA1c (−0.093% relative) using venous samples. Imprecision ranged from 0.62% to 1.93% CV for fingerstick samples and 1.11% to 1.69% CV for venous samples. Conclusions: The results indicate that the POC test evaluated here is accurate and precise using both fingerstick and venous whole blood.

Background: Monitoring of HbA1c is the standard of care to assess diabetes control. In Trinidad & Tobago (T&T) there are no existing data on the quality of HbA1c measurement. Our study examined the precision and accuracy of HbA1c testing in T&T. Methods: Sets of 10 samples containing blinded duplicates were shipped to laboratories in T&T. This exercise was repeated 6 months later. Precision and accuracy were estimated for each laboratory/method. Results: T&T methods included immunoassay, capillary electrophoresis, and boronate affinity binding. Most, but not all, laboratories demonstrated acceptable precision and accuracy. Conclusions: Continuous oversight of HbA1c testing (eg, through proficiency testing) in T&T is recommended. These results highlight the lack of oversight of HbA1c testing in some developing countries.

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is used routinely to monitor long-term glycemic control in people with diabetes mellitus, as HbA1c is related directly to risks for diabetic complications. The accuracy of HbA1c methods can be affected adversely by the presence of hemoglobin (Hb) variants or elevated levels of fetal hemoglobin (HbF). The effect of each variant or elevated HbF must be examined with each specific method. The most common Hb variants worldwide are HbS, HbE, HbC, and HbD. All of these Hb variants have single amino acid substitutions in the Hb β chain. HbF is the major hemoglobin during intrauterine life; by the end of the first year, HbF falls to values close to adult levels of approximately 1%. However, elevated HbF levels can occur in certain pathologic conditions or with hereditary persistence of fetal hemoglobin. In a series of publications over the past several years, the effects of these four most common Hb variants and elevated HbF have been described. There are clinically significant interferences with some methods for each of these variants. A summary is given showing which methods are affected by the presence of the heterozygous variants S, E, C, and D and elevated HbF. Methods are divided by type (immunoassay, ion-exchange high-performance liquid chromatography, boronate affinity, other) with an indication of whether the result is artificially increased or decreased by the presence of a Hb variant. Laboratorians should be aware of the limitations of their method with respect to these interferences.

Background: Inaccurate blood glucsoe monitoring systems (BGMSs) can lead to adverse health effects. The Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) Surveillance Program for cleared BGMSs is intended to protect people with diabetes from inaccurate, unreliable BGMS products that are currently on the market in the United States. The Surveillance Program will provide an independent assessment of the analytical performance of cleared BGMSs. Methods: The DTS BGMS Surveillance Program Steering Committee included experts in glucose monitoring, surveillance testing, and regulatory science. Over one year, the committee engaged in meetings and teleconferences aiming to describe how to conduct BGMS surveillance studies in a scientifically sound manner that is in compliance with good clinical practice and all relevant regulations. Results: A clinical surveillance protocol was created that contains performance targets and analytical accuracy-testing studies with marketed BGMS products conducted by qualified clinical and laboratory sites. This protocol entitled “Protocol for the Diabetes Technology Society Blood Glucose Monitor System Surveillance Program” is attached as supplementary material. Conclusion: This program is needed because currently once a BGMS product has been cleared for use by the FDA, no systematic postmarket Surveillance Program exists that can monitor analytical performance and detect potential problems. This protocol will allow identification of inaccurate and unreliable BGMSs currently available on the US market. The DTS Surveillance Program will provide BGMS manufacturers a benchmark to understand the postmarket analytical performance of their products. Furthermore, patients, health care professionals, payers, and regulatory agencies will be able to use the results of the study to make informed decisions to, respectively, select, prescribe, finance, and regulate BGMSs on the market.

Background: Previous studies have shown interference with HbA1c measurement from the 4 most common heterozygous Hb variants (HbAS, HbAE, HbAC, and HbAD) with some assay methods. Here we examine analytical interference from 49 different less common variants with 7 different HbA1c methods using various method principles. Methods: Hb variants were screened using the Bio-Rad Variant or Variant II beta thal short program, confirmed by alkaline and acid electrophoresis, and identified by sequence analysis. The Trinity ultra2 boronate affinity high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method and Roche Tinaquant immunoassay were used as primary and secondary comparative methods, respectively, since these methods are least likely to show interference from Hb variants. Other methods included were the Tosoh G7 and G8, Bio-Rad D-10 and Variant II Turbo, Diazyme Enzymatic, and Sebia Capillarys 2 Flex Piercing. To eliminate any inherent calibration bias, results for each method were adjusted using regression verses the ultra2 with nonvariant samples. Each method’s calibration-adjusted results were compared and judged to be acceptable if within the 99% prediction interval of the regression line for nonvariant samples. Results: Almost all variant samples were recognized as such by the ion-exchange HPLC methods by the presence of abnormal peaks or results outside the reportable range. For most variants, interference was seen with 1 or more of the ion-exchange methods. Following manufacturer instructions for interpretation of chromatograms usually, but not always, prevented reporting of inaccurate results. Results: Laboratories must be cautious about reporting results when the presence of a variant is suspected.

The prevalence of diabetes is increasing and currently affects more than 250 million people worldwide.1 Measurement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is fundamental to the management of patients with diabetes and has recently been recommended for diabetes and prediabetes diagnosis as well.2,3 There has therefore been much attention focused on performance criteria for this very important test. Results from several large-scale prospective trials, most notably the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)4 and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study5 (UKPDS) have shown that HbA1c levels are directly related to risks for diabetic complications and that a relatively small difference in HbA1c levels (