2016PubMedRequires access

Comparative Analytical Performance of Various HbA1c Assays in Iran.

Farideh Razi, Marjan Rahnamaye Farzami, Soltan Ahmad Ebrahimi, Mehrzad Nahid, Mostafa G. Bigdeli, Ali Sheidaei, Anoosheh Ghasemian, Ali Tootee, Tahereh Keramati, Ensieh Nasli‐Esfahani, Bagher Larijani, Parvin Pasalar

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement devices are widely used to evaluate glycemic control in diabetic patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the comparability of various HbA1c instruments used in Iran. METHODS: In the present study, 154 fresh whole blood samples from diabetic patients, with different HbA1c levels (4.0%-10%) and no types of hemoglobinopathy were analyzed by six HbA1c assays including one high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method (D10 HbA1c), two immunoassay methods (COBAS INTEGRA 400 and Pars Azmoon kit), one Boronate affinity method (Nycocard Reader II), and two ion exchange methods (Biosystems and DS5). The two National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Programs (NGSP) certified system, D10 and COBAS INTEGRA 400 which are certified as secondary reference measurement procedures, were considered as reference methods. The CLSI document (EP9-A2) - Method comparison and Bias estimation using patient samples, approved guideline - was used to compare the performance of different HbA1c instruments. RESULTS: The mean of HbA1c in all four types of assays was less than the reference methods (P-value < 0.01).The mean of absolute difference between the reference methods was the least (0.11%). Among the other four tests, Biosystems had the smallest mean of difference (-0.21%), while Pars Azmoon had the highest (-1.18%). Pars Azmoon showed the greatest difference (95% confidence interval) when compared to D10 [-15.5%(-5.7%to -25.3%)] and COBAS INTEGRA [-17% (-9.16% to -24.84%)]. The highest regression slope (B) was found in DS5 method (0.96) in regression model with both reference methods. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that although HbA1c standardization programs have resulted in great improvements in the comparability of HbA1c assays, unacceptable errors still exist and further national and international projects are required for standardization of HbA1c measurement. In this situation, it is recommended to use the same laboratory for HbA1c measurement to monitor diabetic patients.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

INTRODUCTION: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement devices are widely used to evaluate glycemic control in diabetic patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the comparability of various HbA1c instruments used in Iran. METHODS: In the present study, 154 fresh whole blood samples from diabetic patients, with different HbA1c levels (4.0%-10%) and no types of hemoglobinopathy were analyzed by six HbA1c assays including one high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method (D10 HbA1c), two immunoassay methods (COBAS INTEGRA 400 and Pars Azmoon kit), one Boronate affinity method (Nycocard Reader II), and two ion exchange methods (Biosystems and DS5). The two National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Programs (NGSP) certified system, D10 and COBAS INTEGRA 400 which are certified as secondary reference measurement procedures, were considered as reference methods. The CLSI document (EP9-A2) - Method comparison and Bias estimation using patient samples, approved guideline - was used to compare the performance of different HbA1c instruments. RESULTS: The mean of HbA1c in all four types of assays was less than the reference methods (P-value < 0.01).The mean of absolute difference between the reference methods was the least (0.11%). Among the other four tests, Biosystems had the smallest mean of difference (-0.21%), while Pars Azmoon had the highest (-1.18%). Pars Azmoon showed the greatest difference (95% confidence interval) when compared to D10 [-15.5%(-5.7%to -25.3%)] and COBAS INTEGRA [-17% (-9.16% to -24.84%)]. The highest regression slope (B) was found in DS5 method (0.96) in regression model with both reference methods. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that although HbA1c standardization programs have resulted in great improvements in the comparability of HbA1c assays, unacceptable errors still exist and further national and international projects are required for standardization of HbA1c measurement. In this situation, it is recommended to use the same laboratory for HbA1c measurement to monitor diabetic patients.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

INTRODUCTION: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement devices are widely used to evaluate glycemic control in diabetic patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the comparability of various HbA1c instruments used in Iran. METHODS: In the present study, 154 fresh whole blood samples from diabetic patients, with different HbA1c levels (4.0%-10%) and no types of hemoglobinopathy were analyzed by six HbA1c assays including one high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method (D10 HbA1c), two immunoassay methods (COBAS INTEGRA 400 and Pars Azmoon kit), one Boronate affinity method (Nycocard Reader II), and two ion exchange methods (Biosystems and DS5). The two National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Programs (NGSP) certified system, D10 and COBAS INTEGRA 400 which are certified as secondary reference measurement procedures, were considered as reference methods. The CLSI document (EP9-A2) - Method comparison and Bias estimation using patient samples, approved guideline - was used to compare the performance of different HbA1c instruments. RESULTS: The mean of HbA1c in all four types of assays was less than the reference methods (P-value < 0.01).The mean of absolute difference between the reference methods was the least (0.11%). Among the other four tests, Biosystems had the smallest mean of difference (-0.21%), while Pars Azmoon had the highest (-1.18%). Pars Azmoon showed the greatest difference (95% confidence interval) when compared to D10 [-15.5%(-5.7%to -25.3%)] and COBAS INTEGRA [-17% (-9.16% to -24.84%)]. The highest regression slope (B) was found in DS5 method (0.96) in regression model with both reference methods. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that although HbA1c standardization programs have resulted in great improvements in the comparability of HbA1c assays, unacceptable errors still exist and further national and international projects are required for standardization of HbA1c measurement. In this situation, it is recommended to use the same laboratory for HbA1c measurement to monitor diabetic patients.

Key concepts: Confidence interval, Medicine, Glycemic, Significant difference, Chromatography, Mean difference, Mathematics, Statistics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparative Analytical Performance of Various HbA1c Assays in Iran. — Research Paper | ScholarLens