The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Comparison of IFCC-calibrated HbA1c from laboratory and point of care testing systems

Comparison of IFCC-calibrated HbA1c from laboratory and point of care testing systems
Comparison of IFCC-calibrated HbA1c from laboratory and point of care testing systems

Objective: WHO, IDF and ADA recommend HbA1c ≥6.5% (48 mmol/mol) for diagnosis of diabetes with pre-diabetes 6.0% (42 mmol/mol) [WHO] or 5.7% (39 mmol/mol) [ADA] to 6.4% (47 mmol/mol). We have compared HbA1c from several methods for research relating glycaemic markers.


Research design and methods: HbA1c was measured in EDTA blood from 128 patients with diabetes on IE HPLC analysers (Bio-Rad Variant II NU, Menarini HA8160 and Tosoh G8), point of care systems, POCT, (A1cNow+ disposable cartridges and DCA 2000®+ analyser), affinity chromatography (Primus Ultra2) and the IFCC secondary reference method (Menarini HA8160 calibrated using IFCC SRM protocol).


Results: median (IQ range) on IFCC SRM was 7.5% (6.8–8.4) (58(51–68) mmol/mol) HbA1c with minimum 5.3%(34 mmol/mol)/maximum 11.9%(107 mmol/mol). There were positive offsets between IFCC SRM and Bio-Rad Variant II NU, mean difference (1SD), +0.33%(0.17) (+3.6(1.9) mmol/mol), r2 = 0.984, p < 0.001 and Tosoh G8, +0.22%(0.20) (2.4(2.2) mmol/mol), r2 = 0.976, p < 0.001 with a very small negative difference −0.04%(0.11) (−0.4(1.2) mmol/mol), r2 = 0.992, p < 0.001 for Menarini HA8160. POCT methods were less precise with negative offsets for DCA 2000®+ analyser −0.13%(0.28) (−1.4(3.1) mmol/mol), r2 = 0.955, p < 0.001 and A1cNow+ cartridges −0.70%(0.67) (−7.7(7.3) mmol/mol), r2 = 0.699, p < 0.001 (n = 113). Positive biases for Tosoh and Bio-Rad (compared with IFCC SRM) have been eliminated by subsequent revision of calibration.


Conclusions: small differences observed between IFCC-calibrated and NGSP certified methods across a wide HbA1c range were confirmed by quality control and external quality assurance. As these offsets affect estimates of diabetes prevalence, the analyser (and calibrator) employed should be considered when evaluating diagnostic data.

Diabetes, Diagnosis, HbA measurement, IFCC-calibrated HbA, Pre-diabetes
0168-8227
364-372
Manley, Susan E.
46bacfff-cf40-4894-86d8-4aa07e302e70
Hikin, Laura J.
c66900da-51ec-4477-8bbf-6dc483c8e126
Round, Rachel A.
89f73631-d54e-4b3e-99fb-d473e7dc2bcb
Manning, Peter W.
3c1b162f-05b3-42aa-9b7c-c1ebce7aee8d
Luzio, Stephen D.
256a34ad-9e73-40df-93b3-e50bf5f6699e
Dunseath, Gareth J.
f037aab3-662b-42b3-be3b-fa9d896e6ad9
Nightingale, Peter G.
643f789b-872d-4d35-8b85-89cf26ac3020
Stratton, Irene M.
772f25b9-23c0-4240-a3f6-1e76b03b172f
Cramb, Robert
ee537a83-1c72-4eef-93d6-52124a55f5c6
Sikaris, Kenneth A.
34f93551-c48a-4cb1-b4b3-2af1d6e1247c
Gough, Stephen C.L.
9dbb84d2-904f-4a2b-a9a0-9e6b51dc9199
Webber, Jonathan
a4037021-281f-41f1-adb7-1d9ad597ff3e
Manley, Susan E.
46bacfff-cf40-4894-86d8-4aa07e302e70
Hikin, Laura J.
c66900da-51ec-4477-8bbf-6dc483c8e126
Round, Rachel A.
89f73631-d54e-4b3e-99fb-d473e7dc2bcb
Manning, Peter W.
3c1b162f-05b3-42aa-9b7c-c1ebce7aee8d
Luzio, Stephen D.
256a34ad-9e73-40df-93b3-e50bf5f6699e
Dunseath, Gareth J.
f037aab3-662b-42b3-be3b-fa9d896e6ad9
Nightingale, Peter G.
643f789b-872d-4d35-8b85-89cf26ac3020
Stratton, Irene M.
772f25b9-23c0-4240-a3f6-1e76b03b172f
Cramb, Robert
ee537a83-1c72-4eef-93d6-52124a55f5c6
Sikaris, Kenneth A.
34f93551-c48a-4cb1-b4b3-2af1d6e1247c
Gough, Stephen C.L.
9dbb84d2-904f-4a2b-a9a0-9e6b51dc9199
Webber, Jonathan
a4037021-281f-41f1-adb7-1d9ad597ff3e

Manley, Susan E., Hikin, Laura J., Round, Rachel A., Manning, Peter W., Luzio, Stephen D., Dunseath, Gareth J., Nightingale, Peter G., Stratton, Irene M., Cramb, Robert, Sikaris, Kenneth A., Gough, Stephen C.L. and Webber, Jonathan (2014) Comparison of IFCC-calibrated HbA1c from laboratory and point of care testing systems. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 105 (3), 364-372. (doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2014.05.003).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective: WHO, IDF and ADA recommend HbA1c ≥6.5% (48 mmol/mol) for diagnosis of diabetes with pre-diabetes 6.0% (42 mmol/mol) [WHO] or 5.7% (39 mmol/mol) [ADA] to 6.4% (47 mmol/mol). We have compared HbA1c from several methods for research relating glycaemic markers.


Research design and methods: HbA1c was measured in EDTA blood from 128 patients with diabetes on IE HPLC analysers (Bio-Rad Variant II NU, Menarini HA8160 and Tosoh G8), point of care systems, POCT, (A1cNow+ disposable cartridges and DCA 2000®+ analyser), affinity chromatography (Primus Ultra2) and the IFCC secondary reference method (Menarini HA8160 calibrated using IFCC SRM protocol).


Results: median (IQ range) on IFCC SRM was 7.5% (6.8–8.4) (58(51–68) mmol/mol) HbA1c with minimum 5.3%(34 mmol/mol)/maximum 11.9%(107 mmol/mol). There were positive offsets between IFCC SRM and Bio-Rad Variant II NU, mean difference (1SD), +0.33%(0.17) (+3.6(1.9) mmol/mol), r2 = 0.984, p < 0.001 and Tosoh G8, +0.22%(0.20) (2.4(2.2) mmol/mol), r2 = 0.976, p < 0.001 with a very small negative difference −0.04%(0.11) (−0.4(1.2) mmol/mol), r2 = 0.992, p < 0.001 for Menarini HA8160. POCT methods were less precise with negative offsets for DCA 2000®+ analyser −0.13%(0.28) (−1.4(3.1) mmol/mol), r2 = 0.955, p < 0.001 and A1cNow+ cartridges −0.70%(0.67) (−7.7(7.3) mmol/mol), r2 = 0.699, p < 0.001 (n = 113). Positive biases for Tosoh and Bio-Rad (compared with IFCC SRM) have been eliminated by subsequent revision of calibration.


Conclusions: small differences observed between IFCC-calibrated and NGSP certified methods across a wide HbA1c range were confirmed by quality control and external quality assurance. As these offsets affect estimates of diabetes prevalence, the analyser (and calibrator) employed should be considered when evaluating diagnostic data.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 14 May 2014
e-pub ahead of print date: 22 May 2014
Published date: September 2014
Keywords: Diabetes, Diagnosis, HbA measurement, IFCC-calibrated HbA, Pre-diabetes

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 487120
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/487120
ISSN: 0168-8227
PURE UUID: 8a8992e9-e9cb-452e-81ee-9489a61a11e3
ORCID for Irene M. Stratton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1172-7865

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 14 Feb 2024 17:36
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 04:01

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Susan E. Manley
Author: Laura J. Hikin
Author: Rachel A. Round
Author: Peter W. Manning
Author: Stephen D. Luzio
Author: Gareth J. Dunseath
Author: Peter G. Nightingale
Author: Irene M. Stratton ORCID iD
Author: Robert Cramb
Author: Kenneth A. Sikaris
Author: Stephen C.L. Gough
Author: Jonathan Webber

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×