Randie R. Little

Prevalence of Diabetes, Impaired Fasting Glucose, and Impaired Glucose Tolerance in U.S. Adults: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the prevalence and time trends for diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in U.S. adults by age, sex, and race or ethnic group, based on data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994 (NHANES 111) and prior Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (HANESs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS NHANES III contained a probability sample of 18,825 U.S. adults ≥20 years of age who were interviewed to ascertain a medical history of diagnosed diabetes, a subsample of 6,587 adults for whom fasting plasma glucose values were obtained, and a subsample of 2,844 adults between 40 and 74 years of age who received an oral glucose tolerance test. The Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1976–1980, and Hispanic HANES used similar procedures to ascertain diabetes. Prevalence was calculated using the 1997 American Diabetes Association fasting plasma glucose criteria and the 1980–1985 World Health Organization (WHO) oral glucose tolerance test criteria. RESULTS Prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in 1988–1994 was estimated to be 5.1% for U.S. adults ≥20 years of age (10.2 million people when extrapolated to the 1997 U.S. population). Using American Diabetes Association criteria, the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes (fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dl) was 2.7% (5.4 million), and the prevalence of impaired fasting glucose (110 to <126 mg/dl) was 6.9% (13.4 million). There were similar rates of diabetes for men and women, but the rates for non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican-Americans were 1.6 and 1.9 times the rate for non-Hispanic whites. Based on American Diabetes Association criteria, prevalence of diabetes (diagnosed plus undiagnosed) in the total population of people who were 40–74 years of age increased from 8.9% in the period 1976–1980 to 12.3% by 1988–1994. A similar increase was found when WHO criteria were applied (11.4 and 14.3%). CONCLUSIONS The high rates of abnormal fasting and postchallenge glucose found in NHANES III, together with the increasing frequency of obesity and sedentary lifestyles in the population, make it likely that diabetes will continue to be a major health problem in the U.S

A Review of Variant Hemoglobins Interfering with Hemoglobin A1c Measurement

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.

Status of Hemoglobin A1c Measurement and Goals for Improvement: From Chaos to Order for Improving Diabetes Care

BACKGROUND The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) established the importance of hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) as a predictor of outcome in patients with diabetes mellitus. In 1994, the American Diabetes Association began recommending specific Hb A(1c) targets, but lack of comparability among assays limited the ability of clinicians to use these targets. The National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) was implemented in 1996 to standardize Hb A(1c) results to those of the DCCT/UKPDS. CONTENT The NGSP certifies manufacturers of Hb A(1c) methods as traceable to the DCCT. The certification criteria have been tightened over time and the NGSP has worked with the College of American Pathologists in tightening proficiency-testing requirements. As a result, variability of Hb A(1c) results among clinical laboratories has been considerably reduced. The IFCC has developed a reference system for Hb A(1c) that facilitates metrological traceability to a higher order. The NGSP maintains traceability to the IFCC network via ongoing sample comparisons. There has been controversy over whether to report Hb A(1c) results in IFCC or NGSP units, or as estimated average glucose. Individual countries are making this decision. SUMMARY Variability among Hb A(1c) results has been greatly reduced. Not all countries will report Hb A(1c) in the same units, but there are established equations that enable conversion between different units. Hb A(1c) is now recommended for diagnosing diabetes, further accentuating the need for optimal assay performance. The NGSP will continue efforts to improve Hb A(1c) testing to ensure that clinical needs are met.

The IFCC Reference Measurement System for HbA1c: A 6-Year Progress Report

BACKGROUND The IFCC Reference Measurement System for hemoglobin (Hb)A(1c) (IFCC-RM) has been developed within the framework of metrologic traceability and is embedded in a network of 14 reference laboratories. This paper describes the outcome of 12 intercomparison studies (periodic evaluations to control essential elements of the IFCC-RM). METHODS Each study included: unknown samples (to test individual network laboratories); known samples (controls); recently manufactured calibrators (to check calculated assigned value); stored calibrators (to test stability) and a calibration-set (to calibrate the IFCC-RM). The unknown samples are measured by use of the IFCC-RM and the designated comparison methods [DCMs; the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) in the US, Japanese Diabetes Society/Japanese Society for Clinical Chemistry (JDS/JSCC) in Japan, and Mono-S in Sweden] are used to investigate the stability of the Master Equation (ME), the relationship between IFCC-RM and DCMs. RESULTS A total of 105 IFCC-RM data sets were evaluated: 95 were approved, 5 were not, and for 5 no data were submitted. Trend analysis of the MEs, expressed as change in percentage HbA(1c) per year, revealed 0.000% (NGSP, not significant), -0.030%, (JDS/JSCC; significant) and -0.016% (Mono-S; not significant). Evaluation of long-term performance revealed no systematic change over time; 2 laboratories showed significant bias, 1 poor reproducibility. The mean HbA(1c) determined by laboratories performing mass spectrometry (MS) was the same as the mean determined by laboratories using capillary electrophoresis (CE), but the reproducibility at laboratories using CE was better. One batch of new calibrators was not approved. All stored calibrators were stable. CONCLUSION A sound reference system is in place to ensure continuity and stability of the analytical anchor for HbA(1c).

Clinical Application of Glycosylated Hemoglobin Measurements

Glycosylated hemoglobin measurement has been shown to be a potentially useful tool for both a variety of research applications and for the management of patients with diabetes mellitus. None of the methods available to quantitate glycosylated hemoglobins is ideal. We have reviewed a number of critical methodologie considerations for Chromatographie procedures including the effects of sample storage under various conditions, and the importance of removing labile components prior to analyses. We have developed a method for the colorimetrie determination of glycosylated hemoglobins that is more rapid than methods reported previously, that correlates well with results using high-performance liquid chromatogra-phy, and that can he standardized between laboratories. We have reviewed our experience using glycosylated hemoglobin in a large population of diabetic youths. We have presented a method for developing realistic goals for glucose control using glycosylated hemoglobin and for using glycosylated hemoglobin as a patient education and care reinforcement tool.

Glycated hemoglobin standardization--National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) perspective.

Abstract The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) demonstrated conclusively that risks for complications in patients with diabetes are directly related to glycemic control, as measured by glycated hemoglobin (GHb). Many diabetes organizations worldwide now recommend GHb targets in terms of DCCT/UKPDS hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). However, in 1993 there was a lack of comparability of GHb test results among methods and laboratories that represented a major obstacle to meaningful implementation of specific guidelines for diabetes care. The National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) was implemented to enable laboratories to report DCCT/UKPDS-traceable GHb/HbA1c results. The number of methods and laboratories certified by the NGSP as traceable to the DCCT has steadily increased. Proficiency testing results show marked improvement in the comparability of GHb results. By the end of 2002, 98% of surveyed laboratories (n = approx. 2000) reported GHb results as HbA1c or equivalent compared to 50% in 1993. Ninety-seven percent of laboratories used an NGSP-certified method. For most certified methods in 2002, between-laboratory CVs were <5%. For all certified methods in 2002, the mean HbA1c value (%) was within 0.8% HbA1c from the NGSP target at all HbA1c concentrations. The vast majority of laboratories in the US are now reporting results that are traceable to DCCT/UKPDS outcomes.

Global standardization of glycated hemoglobin measurement: the position of the IFCC Working Group

Abstract The measurement of glycated hemoglobin is central in the monitoring of glycemic control in patients with diabetes. There are at least 30 different laboratory assays commercially available to measure the proportion of HbA1c in blood. In 1995 the IFCC established a Working Group (IFCC WG-HbA1c) to achieve international standardization of HbA1c measurement. The main achievements can be summarized as follows: a) a reference measurement procedure has been established with purified primary calibrators; b) a network of reference laboratories has been developed worldwide; and c) work has begun on implementation of traceability to the IFCC reference system. The IFCC WG-HbA1c recognizes the recommendation of the IFCC-IUPAC Committee on Nomenclature, Properties and Units that the analyte measured by the IFCC reference measurement procedure has been defined as βN1-deoxyfructosyl-hemoglobin and that the recommended measurement units are mmol/mol. The IFCC WG-HbA1c recommends maintaining the use of the name HbA1c in clinical practice. Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45:1077–80.

Relationship of Glycosylated Hemoglobin to Oral Glucose Tolerance: Implications for Diabetes Screening

The oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for diagnosis of diabetes is inconvenient and requires a great deal of patient cooperation. Glycosylated hemoglobin (GHb), an index of long-term glycemic control, could offer several practical advantages over the OGTT for diabetes screening. We evaluated GHb as a screen for diabetes in 381 adults from a population with a high prevalence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes (Pima Indians). All individuals underwent a standard OGTT (75 g) and were separated into one of three groups: normal (N), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), or diabetes mellitus (D) based on World Health Organization criteria. HbA1c, a GHb, was measured by highly precise high-performance liquid chromatography (interassay C.V. <4%). The normal range for HbA1c was 4.07–6.03% based on the 95% confidence interval for a nondiabetic, mostly Caucasian population. Compared with OGTT, HbA1c was highly specific (91%); an elevated HbA1c usually indicated D or IGT (sensitivity = 85 and 30%, respectively). A normal HbA1c did not, however, exclude a diagnosis of D or IGT. Based on previous epidemiological studies relating plasma glucose to chronic diabetic complications, GHb as measured in this study would properly identify the vast majority of subjects at risk. Long-term studies are necessary to determine the actual risk of complications in individuals with persistently normal HbA1c and D or IGT (based on OGTT).

HbA1c: how do we measure it and what does it mean?

Purpose of reviewDescription of recent developments in the standardization of HbA1c measurement and interpretation of HbA1c results. Recent findingsHbA1c is extensively used in the management of patients with diabetes. The two major schemes to standardize HbA1c produce values that differ substantially. A prospective, multinational study revealed a linear correlation between HbA1c and average blood glucose. Some, but not all, assay methods are able to accurately measure HbA1c in individuals with common hemoglobin variants. SummaryProgress in standardization of methods for HbA1c measurement has significantly reduced variation among different methods. The improved accuracy could allow HbA1c to be used for screening and diagnosis of diabetes. A consensus document recommends that HbA1c be reported in both NGSP (%) and IFCC (mmol/mol) units. HbA1c results can be translated into estimated average glucose (eAG), which could be reported in addition to HbA1c.

The effect of elevated fetal hemoglobin on hemoglobin A1c results: five common hemoglobin A1c methods compared with the IFCC reference method.

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is an important indicator of risk for complications in patients with diabetes mellitus. Elevated fetal hemoglobin (HbF) levels have been reported to interfere with results of some HbA1c methods, but it has generally been assumed that HbA1c results from boronate-affinity methods are not affected by elevated HbF levels. None of the previous studies used the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) reference method as the comparative HbA1c method. We, therefore, measured HbA1c in samples with normal and elevated HbF levels by several common assay methods and compared the results with those of the IFCC reference method.HbF levels of more than 20% artificially lowered HbA1c results from the Primus CLC 330/385 (Primus Diagnostics, Kansas City, MO), Siemens DCA2000 (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Tarrytown, NY), and Tosoh 2.2+ (Tosoh Bioscience, South San Francisco, CA), but not the Bio-Rad Variant II (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) and Tosoh G7. Physicians and laboratory professionals need to be aware of potential interference from elevated HbF levels that could affect HbA1c results, including those from boronate-affinity methods.