Glycated Hemoglobin Measurement: Comparison of Three Methods Versus High Performance Liquid Chromatography

Author:

Chaila María Zulema1ORCID,Viniegra Matías1,Gagliardino Juan José2,Martínez Alfredo1,Simesen de Bielke María Gabriela1,Frusti Mauro3,Monaco Luis1,Salgado Pablo4,Buso Carlos2,Gonzalez Claudio Daniel2,Commendatore Víctor Francisco2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. On behalf of the Association of High Complexity Laboratories (Asociación de Laboratorios de Alta Complejidad - ALAC) Study Group*, CABA Argentina

2. On behalf of the Argentine Diabetes Society (Sociedad Argentina de Diabetes - SAD), CABA Argentina

3. Biochemist Technical Director of BAIRESLAB, CABA Argentina

4. Instituto de Investigaciones en Salud Publica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, CABA Argentina

Abstract

Background: HbA1c result provide information on metabolic control in diabetes mellitus (DM) and could also be used for its diagnosis. For its determination, the laboratory must be certified by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) or the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) and comply with a strict quality control program. Aims: To determine the correlation and agreement between HbA1c results measured by three analytical methods (enzymatic, turbidimetric, and capillary electrophoresis) versus HPLC. Methods: Method comparison—1245 samples from equal number of subjects at 45 Association of High Complexity Laboratories (Asociación de Laboratorios de Alta Complejidad—ALAC) centers, centralizing sample processing and operator. Statistical analysis—analysis of variance (ANOVA) and nonparametric Friedman ANOVA test for related samples, means, and medians. Correlation and concordance—Pearson’s correlation and linear regression, intraclass correlation coefficient (Passing and Bablock and Bland and Altman). Results: The comparison of mean values obtained by the four methods showed statistically significant, but clinically irrelevant, differences: HbA1c by HPLC versus Electrophoresis 0.06% (0.42 mmol/mol) P = .000 (± 1.96 DS -0.070 -0.047), Enzymatic 0.087% (1 mmol/mol) P = .000 (± 1.96 DS 0.077 0.098), Turbidimetric 0.056% (0.38 mmol/mol) P = 0.000 (± 1.96 DS -0.067 -0.044). Their concordance showed intraclass correlation of single measures of 0.982 P < .001 (95% CI 0.987 - 0.9838). Conclusions: The three methods present low variability and high correlation versus the HPLC.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Biomedical Engineering,Bioengineering,Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism,Internal Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3