Search

Introduction: Women are on average diagnosed with diabetes mellitus at later age than men but have higher mortality. As the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is primarily based on HbA1c, the use of a non-specific reference range and cut point for diabetes mellitus that does not account for gender differences in diabetes could potentially lead to underdiagnosis of diabetes mellitus in women and missed opportunities for intervention. We investigated whether a contributing factor to the later diagnosis in women may be a difference in distribution of HbA1c in premenopausal women versus men of the same age by comparing HbA1c values in men and women across multiple sites in the UK. Methods: We analysed the HbA1c levels of 146,907 individuals who underwent single testing only and had HbA1c ≤ 50 mmol/mol between 2012 and 2019 in one laboratory (cohort 1). This was replicated in six laboratories with 938,678 individuals tested between 2019 and 2021 (cohort 2). Results: In cohort 1, women < 50 years old had an HbA1c distribution markedly lower than that in men by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol (p < 0.0001), while the difference in the distribution of HbA1c for individuals aged ≥ 50 years was less pronounced (mean difference 0.9 mmol/mol, p < 0.0001). For individuals under the age of 50, HbA1c in women lagged by up to 10 years compared to men. Similar findings were found in cohort 2. We estimated an additional 17% (n = 34,953) of undiagnosed women aged < 50 years in England and Wales could be reclassified to have diabetes mellitus, which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16–50 years. Conclusion: The HbA1c cut point for diagnosis of diabetes mellitus may need to be re-evaluated in women under the age of 50 years. Early identification of diabetes mellitus in women has the potential to improve women's health outcomes in the longer term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-023-01482-6.Correction to: Diabetes Therhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-023-01482-6In this article, the author name Christopher J. Duff was incorrectly written as Christof J. Duff.The original article has been corrected.By David Holland; Anthony A. Fryer; Mike Stedman; Fahmy W. F. Hanna; Christopher J. Duff; Lewis Green; Jonathan Scargill; Ian Halsall; Neil Gaskell; Jonathon D. Howe; Adrian H. Heald and Pensee WuReported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author [Extracted from the article]

Aims. We previously showed that the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing frequency links to diabetes control. Here, we examine the effect of variability in test interval, adjusted for the frequency, on change in HbA1c (ΔHbA1c). Materials & Methods. HbA1c results were collected on 83,872 people with HbA1c results at baseline and 5 years (±3 months) later and ≥6 tests during this period. We calculated the standard deviation (SD) of test interval for each individual and examined the link between deciles of SD of the test interval and ΔHbA1c level, stratified by baseline HbA1c. Results. In general, less variability in testing frequency (more consistent monitoring) was associated with better diabetes control. This was most evident with moderately raised baseline HbA1c levels (7.0–9.0% (54–75 mmol/mol)). For example, in those with a starting HbA1c of 7.0–7.5% (54–58 mmol/mol), the lowest SD decile was associated with little change in HbA1c over 5 years, while for those with the highest decile, HbA1c rose by 0.4–0.6% (4–6 mmol/mol; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that the association was independent of the age/sex/hospital site. Subanalysis suggested that the effect was most pronounced in those aged <65 years with baseline HbA1c of 7.0–7.5% (54–58 mmol/mol). We observed a 6.7-fold variation in the proportion of people in the top-three SD deciles across general practices. Conclusions. These findings indicate that the consistency of testing interval, not the just number of tests/year, is important in maintaining diabetes control, especially in those with moderately raised HbA1c levels. Systems to improve regularity of HbA1c testing are therefore needed, especially given the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We previously showed, in patients with diabetes, that >50% of monitoring tests for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) are outside recommended intervals and that this is linked to diabetes control. Here, we examined the effect of tests/year on achievement of commonly utilised HbA1c targets and on HbA1c changes over time. Methods: Data on 20,690 adults with diabetes with a baseline HbA1c of >53 mmol/mol (7%) were extracted from Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory records at three UK hospitals. We examined the effect of HbA1c tests/year on (i) the probability of achieving targets of ≤53 mmol/mol (7%) and ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) in a year using multi-state modelling and (ii) the changes in mean HbA1c using a linear mixed-effects model. Results: The probabilities of achieving ≤53 mmol/mol (7%) and ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) targets within 1 year were 0.20 (95% confidence interval: 0.19–0.21) and 0.10 (0.09–0.10), respectively. Compared with four tests/year, having one test or more than four tests/year were associated with lower likelihoods of achieving either target; two to three tests/year gave similar likelihoods to four tests/year. Mean HbA1c levels were higher in patients who had one test/year compared to those with four tests/year (mean difference: 2.64 mmol/mol [0.24%], p<0.001). Conclusions: We showed that ≥80% of patients with suboptimal control are not achieving commonly recommended HbA1c targets within 1 year, highlighting the major challenge facing healthcare services. We also demonstrated that, although appropriate monitoring frequency is important, testing every 6 months is as effective as quarterly testing, supporting international recommendations. We suggest that the importance HbA1c monitoring frequency is being insufficiently recognised in diabetes management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]