Assessing agreement between the three common clinical measurement methods of HbA1c.
Cut-offs
HbA1c
Misclassification
Roche
Sebia
TOSOH G8
Journal
Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders
ISSN: 2251-6581
Titre abrégé: J Diabetes Metab Disord
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101590741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
20
07
2019
accepted:
03
02
2020
entrez:
19
6
2020
pubmed:
19
6
2020
medline:
19
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reliable measurement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) has great importance in the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus. The aim of the present study was to compare the performance parameters of the three common methods of HbA1c assay, including the Roche, Sebia and TOSOH G8 systems. We studied 120 patients referred to a clinical laboratory for HbA1c assay. The blood samples were analyzed with the Roche, Sebia and TOSOH G8 systems based on immunoassay, capillary electrophoresis, and ion-exchange chromatography techniques, respectively. The Spearman and the Passing-Bablok regression,as well as the Bland-Altman plots, were used to compare these methods. For each assay, the patients' classification was evaluated at the three cut-points of 6.5, 7, and 8% and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the methods were estimated. Our results showed that there were good correlations and agreement between the methods. We found a mean difference of 0.07% for the TOSOH G8 vs. Roche, 0.06% for the TOSOH G8 vs. Sebia and - 0.01% for the Roche vs. Sebia. The methods represented very low bias, indicating the good accuracy of the results. The sensitivity and specificity of the methods were comparable as well. The three methods also performed similarly in the classification of patients at the proposed cut-off points. Based on our results, the Roche, Sebia and TOSOH G8 systems showed a very high level of agreement with comparable performance parameters and yielded similar and accurate classification of diabetic patients. Therefore, these methods can be used interchangeably.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32550176
doi: 10.1007/s40200-020-00503-6
pii: 503
pmc: PMC7270288
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
273-279Informations de copyright
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interestThe authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Références
Am J Clin Pathol. 2014 Jun;141(6):867-77
pubmed: 24838332
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2017 Feb;77(1):15-18
pubmed: 27768851
J Clin Lab Anal. 2015 Jan;29(1):57-60
pubmed: 24687307
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012 Oct 1;50(10):1769-75
pubmed: 23089707
Lab Med. 2018 Jul 5;49(3):231-238
pubmed: 29528429
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2017 Oct;77(6):458-464
pubmed: 28644050
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2016 Oct 15;26(3):353-364
pubmed: 27812304
J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2015 Aug 04;14:65
pubmed: 26244134
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013 Aug;51(8):e191-3
pubmed: 23612659
Am J Clin Pathol. 2008 May;129(5):811-4
pubmed: 18426743
Diabetes Care. 2014 Jan;37 Suppl 1:S14-80
pubmed: 24357209