Innovations in HbA1c analysis: finding the balance between speed and accuracy. An investigation of a potential new Secondary Reference Measurement Procedure for the IFCC.

OBJECTIVES: The escalating prevalence of diabetes worldwide has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of people who need testing, which in turn necessitates faster HbA1c measurement. The Tosoh GR01 addresses the need for fast turnaround times of whilst offering pragmatic steps to maintain result accuracy in a single instrument by offering two distinct operating modes: Short Mode (SM) and Long Mode (LM). The aim of this study was to evaluate all relevant aspects of the performance of the Tosoh GR01 with a view to accepting the instrument as a future Secondary Reference Measurement Procedure (SRMP) for the IFCC. METHODS: Certified Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) Evaluation Protocols (EP) were used to evaluate precision (EP-5), accuracy (EP-9), linearity (EP-6), carry-over (EP-10) and the effect of hemoglobin variants and other potential interferences. RESULTS: Both modes demonstrated CVs <0.6 % in SI units and <0.4 % in NGSP units at 46 mmol/mol (6.4 %) and 75 mmol/mol (9.0 %) and passed both National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) and International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) certification procedures when compared with 7 IFCC Certified Secondary Reference Measurement Procedures (SRMP). Sigma for both modes was >6 when using the results of EP-5 and EP-9 at an HbA1c concentration of 50 mmol/mol (6.7 %). Neither mode showed any interference with common Hb-variants except for HbAE when HbA1c was >65 mmol/mol. In the SM HbAS, HbAD and HbAC were recognized but no result was reported. CONCLUSIONS: There is a good balance between speed and accuracy for determining HbA1c with the Tosoh GR01 in both analytical modes and the device is suitable for use as an IFCC SRMP.

Limitations of glycated albumin standardization when applied to the assessment of diabetes patients.

OBJECTIVES: Glycated albumin (GA) has potential value in the management of people with diabetes; however, to draw meaningful conclusions between clinical studies it is important that the GA values are comparable. This study investigates the standardization of the Norudia Glycated Albumin and Lucica Glycated Albumin-L methods. METHODS: The manufacturer reported imprecision was verified by performing CLSI-EP15-A3 protocol using manufacturer produced controls. The Japanese Clinical Chemistry Reference Material (JCCRM)611-1 was measured 20 times to evaluate the accuracy of both methods. GA was also measured in 1,167 patient samples and results were compared between the methods in mmol/mol and %. RESULTS: Maximum CV for Lucica was ≤0.6 % and for Norudia ≤1.8 % for control material. Results in mmol/mol and % of the JCCRM611-1 were within the uncertainty of the assigned values for both methods. In patient samples the relative difference in mmol/mol between the two methods ranged from -10.4 % at a GA value of 183 mmol/mol to +8.7 % at a GA value of 538 mmol/mol. However, the relative difference expressed in percentage units ranged from of 0 % at a GA value of 9.9 % to +1.7 % at a GA value of 30 %. CONCLUSIONS: The results in mmol/mol between the two methods for the patient samples were significantly different compared to the results in %. It is not clear why patient samples behave differently compared to JCCRM611-1 material. Valuable lessons can be learnt from comparing the standardization process of GA with that of HbA1c.

Are hemoglobin A1c point-of-care analyzers fit for purpose? The story continues.

OBJECTIVES: Point-of-care (POC) analyzers are playing an increasingly important role in diabetes management but it is essential that we know the performance of these analyzers in order to make appropriate clinical decisions. Whilst there is a growing body of evidence around the more well-known analyzers, there are many 'new kids on the block' with new features, such as displaying the presence of potential Hb-variants, which do not yet have a proven track record. METHODS: The study is a comprehensive analytical and usability study of six POC analyzers for HbA1c using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocols, international quality targets and certified International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) and National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) Secondary Reference Measurement Procedures (SRMP). The study includes precision (EP-5 and EP-15), trueness (EP-9), linearity (EP-6), sample commutability (fresh, frozen and lyophilized), interference of Hb-variants (fresh and frozen samples). RESULTS: Only two of the six analyzers performed to acceptable levels over the range of performance criteria. Hb-variant interference, imprecision or variability between lot numbers are still poor in four of the analyzers. CONCLUSIONS: This unique and comprehensive study shows that out of six POC analyzers studied only two (The Lab 001 and Cobas B101) met international quality criteria (IFCC and NGSP), two (A1Care and Innovastar) were borderline and two (QuikReadgo and Allegro) were unacceptable. It is essential that the scientific and clinical community are equipped with this knowledge in order to make sound decisions on the use of these analyzers.

HbA1c method performance: The great success story of global standardization.

Diagnosing and monitoring the treatment of people with diabetes is a global issue and uses considerable resources in laboratories and clinics worldwide. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) has been the mainstay of monitoring glycemic control in people with diabetes for many years and more recently it has been advocated as a diagnostic tool for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Good analytical performance is key to the successful use of any laboratory test, but is critical when using the test to diagnose disease, especially when the potential number of diagnoses could exceed 500 million people. Very small variations in bias or increased imprecision could lead to either a missed diagnosis or overdiagnosis of the disease and given the scale of the global disease burden, this could mean erroneous categorization of potentially millions of people. Fundamental to good performance of diagnostic testing is standardization, with defined reference materials and measurement procedures. In this review, we discuss the historical steps to first harmonize HbA1c testing, followed by the global standardization efforts and provide an update on the current situation and future goals for HbA1c testing.

Evaluating new HbA1c methods for adoption by the IFCC and NGSP reference networks using international quality targets.

BACKGROUND: As a reference laboratory for HbA1c, it is essential to have accurate and precise HbA1c methods covering a range of measurement principles. We report an evaluation of the Abbott Enzymatic (Architect c4000), Roche Gen.3 HbA1c (Cobas c513) and Tosoh G11 using different quality targets. METHODS: The effect of hemoglobin variants, other potential interferences and the performance in comparison to both the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) and the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) reference systems was assessed using certified evaluation protocols. RESULTS: Each of the evaluated HbA1c methods had CVs <3% in SI units and <2% in NGSP units at 46 mmol/mol (6.4%) and 72 mmol/mol (8.7%) and passed the NGSP criteria when compared with six secondary reference measurement procedures (SRMPs). Sigma was 8.6 for Abbott Enzymatic, 3.3 for Roche Cobas c513 and 6.9 for Tosoh G11. No clinically significant interference was detected for the common Hb variants for the three methods. CONCLUSIONS: All three methods performed well and are suitable for clinical application in the analysis of HbA1c. Partly based on the result of this study, the Abbott Enzymatic method on the Architect c4000 and the Roche Gen.3 HbA1c on the Cobas c513 are now official, certified IFCC and NGSP SRMPs in the IFCC and NGSP networks. Sigma metrics quality criteria presented in a graph distinguish between good and excellent performance.

Can the Afinion HbA1c Point-of-Care instrument be an alternative method for the Tosoh G8 in the case of Hb-Tacoma?

BACKGROUND: Hb-variant interference when reporting HbA1c has been an ongoing challenge since HbA1c was introduced to monitor patients with diabetes mellitus. Most Hb-variants show an abnormal chromatogram when cation-exchange HPLC is used for the determination of HbA1c. Unfortunately, the Tosoh G8 generates what appears to be normal chromatogram in the presence of Hb-Tacoma, yielding a falsely high HbA1c value. The primary aim of the study was to investigate if the Afinion HbA1c point-of-care (POC) instrument could be used as an alternative method for the Tosoh G8 when testing for HbA1c in the presence of Hb-Tacoma. METHODS: Whole blood samples were collected in K2EDTA tubes from individuals homozygous for HbA (n = 40) and heterozygous for Hb-Tacoma (n = 20). Samples were then immediately analyzed with the Afinion POC instrument. After analysis, aliquots of each sample were frozen at -80 °C. The frozen samples were shipped on dry ice to the European Reference Laboratory for Glycohemoglobin (ERL) and analyzed with three International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) and National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) Secondary Reference Measurement Procedures (SRMPs). The Premier Hb9210 was used as the reference method. RESULTS: When compared to the reference method, samples with Hb-Tacoma yielded mean relative differences of 31.8% on the Tosoh G8, 21.5% on the Roche Tina-quant Gen. 2 and 16.8% on the Afinion. CONCLUSIONS: The Afinion cannot be used as an alternative method for the Tosoh G8 when testing for HbA1c in the presence of Hb-Tacoma.

Investigation of 2 models to set and evaluate quality targets for hb a1c: biological variation and sigma-metrics.

BACKGROUND: A major objective of the IFCC Task Force on Implementation of HbA1c Standardization is to develop a model to define quality targets for glycated hemoglobin (Hb A1c). METHODS: Two generic models, biological variation and sigma-metrics, are investigated. We selected variables in the models for Hb A1c and used data of external quality assurance/proficiency testing programs to evaluate the suitability of the models to set and evaluate quality targets within and between laboratories. RESULTS: In the biological variation model, 48% of individual laboratories and none of the 26 instrument groups met the minimum performance criterion. In the sigma-metrics model, with a total allowable error (TAE) set at 5 mmol/mol (0.46% NGSP), 77% of the individual laboratories and 12 of 26 instrument groups met the 2σ criterion. CONCLUSIONS: The biological variation and sigma-metrics models were demonstrated to be suitable for setting and evaluating quality targets within and between laboratories. The sigma-metrics model is more flexible, as both the TAE and the risk of failure can be adjusted to the situation-for example, requirements related to diagnosis/monitoring or international authorities. With the aim of reaching (inter)national consensus on advice regarding quality targets for Hb A1c, the Task Force suggests the sigma-metrics model as the model of choice, with default values of 5 mmol/mol (0.46%) for TAE and risk levels of 2σ and 4σ for routine laboratories and laboratories performing clinical trials, respectively. These goals should serve as a starting point for discussion with international stakeholders in the field of diabetes.

Multicentre evaluation of the Premier Hb9210 HbA1c analyser.

BACKGROUND: The accurate and precise quantification of HbA1c is essential for the diagnosis and routine monitoring of patients with diabetes. We report an evaluation of the Trinity Biotech Premier Hb9210 analyser (Bray, Ireland/Kansas City, MO, USA), a boronate affinity chromatography-based high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) system for the measurement of glycated haemoglobin. METHODS: We evaluated the analytical performance of the Hb9210 as part of a multicentre evaluation. The effect of haemoglobin variants, other potential interferences and the performance in comparison to both the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) and National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) reference systems, was assessed. Most of the centres participating also act as reference laboratories for both the IFCC standardisation network for HbA1c and the NGSP. RESULTS: The combined data from all centres showed total coefficients of variation (CV) of 2.71%, 2.32% and 2.14% at low, medium and high values, respectively, for mmol/mol (SI units) and 1.62%, 1.59% and 1.68% for % (NGSP units), which are well below the recommended upper limits of 3% CV for mmol/mol (SI units) and 2% CV for % (NGSP). The analyser showed a good correlation to HbA1c methods currently used in clinical practice and the IFCC reference method procedure. Haemoglobin variants AC, AS, AE and AD do not affect the measurement of HbA1c. Overall the Hb9210 performs well across the whole analytical range. CONCLUSIONS: The Hb9210 performs well and is suitable for clinical application in the analysis of HbA1c.

Three of 7 hemoglobin A1c point-of-care instruments do not meet generally accepted analytical performance criteria.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, we investigated the conformance of 8 hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) point-of-care (POC) instruments. Since then, instruments have improved and new devices are available on the market. In this second study, we evaluated the performance of DCA Vantage, Afinion, InnovaStar, Quo-Lab, Quo-Test, Cobas B101, and B-analyst Hb A(1c) POC instruments. METHODS: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute protocols EP-5 and EP-9 were applied to investigate imprecision, accuracy, and bias. We assessed bias using the mean of 3 certified secondary reference measurement procedures (SRMPs). Assay conformance with the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) certification criteria was also evaluated. Interference of common Hb variants was investigated for methods that could work with hemolysed material. RESULTS: The total CVs for all instruments, except for the DCA Vantage at a high Hb A(1c) value, were ≤3.1% in SI units and ≤2.1% in Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) units. Afinion, DCA Vantage, B-analyst, and Cobas B101 instruments passed the NGSP criteria with 2 different reagent lot numbers. Quo-Test, Quo-Lab, and InnovaStar instruments had a negative bias compared to the mean of the 3 SRMPs and failed NGSP criteria. Most of the common Hb variants did not interfere with the investigated instruments, except Hb AE for the Cobas B101. CONCLUSIONS: Afinion, DCA Vantage, Cobas B101, and B-analyst instruments met the generally accepted performance criteria for Hb A(1c). Quo-Test, Quo-Lab, and InnovaStar met the criteria for precision but not for bias. Proficiency testing should be mandated for users of Hb A1c POC assays to ensure quality.

Evaluation of the Menarini/ARKRAY ADAMS A1c HA-8180V analyser for HbA1c.

BACKGROUND: We report an evaluation of the Menarini/ARKRAY ADAMS A1c HA-8180V analyser (HA-8180V), the fifth generation Menarini/ARKRAY ion-exchange HPLC for the measurement of HbA(1c). METHODS: We evaluated the analytical performance, the measurement of haemoglobin variants and the performance in comparison to major analytical methods. RESULTS: Within-run, between-run and total CV were 0.2%, 0.4% and 0.7% at low HbA(1c) concentrations and 0.2%, 0.2% and 0.4% at high HbA(1c) concentrations, respectively. Trueness revealed a maximum deviation of 0.8 mmol/mol (IFCC units) or 0.1% (NGSP units) over the relevant analytical range. Linearity, carry-over and linear drift were excellent. Labile-HbA(1c), carbamylated haemoglobin, icteric samples and variation in hematocrit did not affect HbA(1c) outcome. Haemoglobin variants AS, AC and F do not affect HbA(1c) outcome and are explicitly identified and correctly quantified. HbA(1c) can not be measured in samples with AE and AD, but these variants are identified correctly. In comparison to other methods used at present, the HA-8180V shows excellent performance. CONCLUSIONS: The HA-8180V performs at a high level and is fit for any clinical application.

Six of eight hemoglobin A1c point-of-care instruments do not meet the general accepted analytical performance criteria.

BACKGROUND: Hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)) point-of-care (POC) instruments are widely used to provide rapid-turnaround results in diabetic care centers. We investigated the conformance of various Hb A(1c) POC instruments (In2it from Bio-Rad, DCA Vantage from Siemens, Afinion and Nycocard from Axis-Shield, Clover from Infopia, InnovaStar from DiaSys, A1CNow from Bayer, and Quo-Test from Quotient Diagnostics) with generally accepted performance criteria for Hb A(1c). METHODS: The CLSI protocols EP-10, EP-5, and EP-9 were applied to investigate imprecision, accuracy, and bias. We assessed bias using 3 certified secondary reference measurement procedures and the mean of the 3 reference methods. Assay conformance with the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) certification criteria, as calculated from analyses with 2 different reagent lot numbers for each Hb A(1c) method, was also evaluated. RESULTS: Because of disappointing EP-10 results, 2 of the 8 manufacturers decided not to continue the evaluation. The total CVs from EP-5 evaluations for the different instruments with a low and high Hb A(1c) value were: In2it 4.9% and 3.3%, DCA Vantage 1.8% and 3.7%, Clover 4.0% and 3.5%, InnovaStar 3.2% and 3.9%, Nycocard 4.8% and 5.2%, and Afinion 2.4% and 1.8%. Only the Afinion and the DCA Vantage passed the NGSP criteria with 2 different reagent lot numbers. CONCLUSIONS: Only the Afinion and the DCA Vantage met the acceptance criteria of having a total CV <3% in the clinically relevant range. The EP-9 results and the calculations of the NGSP certification showed significant differences in analytical performance between different reagent lot numbers for all Hb A(1c) POC instruments.

Analysis: Investigating the quality of POCT devices for HbA1c, what are our next steps?

There are a growing number of publications evaluating the performance of HbA1c point-of-care testing (POCT) devices when compared to routine laboratory instruments, but is this what we need from future studies? Here we describe the current understanding of the performance of POCT for HbA1c, which areas need further studies, and the key requirements for future publications based on performance evaluations of these devices. These include studies in clinical settings, performance measured against internationally standardized reference methods, and the need to evaluate new to the market devices that do not currently have a detailed performance history. In addition we highlight the need for external quality assessment schemes that are designed to support POCT in a wide range of clinical settings.

Evaluation of Four HbA1c Point-of-Care Devices Using International Quality Targets: Are They Fit for the Purpose?

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) testing is becoming increasingly valuable in health care delivery, and it is important that the devices used meet the same quality criteria as main laboratory analyzers. While external quality assessment (EQA) provides a great tool for assessing quality, many POC devices are not enrolled in these schemes and standard laboratory evaluations are needed to assess performance. METHODS: The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocols EP-5 and EP-9 were applied to investigate imprecision, accuracy and bias. We assessed bias using the mean of 4 certified secondary reference measurement procedures (SRMPs). RESULTS: The Afinion2™ and the Quo-Lab had CVs of ≤1.7 and ≤2.4% respectively in IFCC SI units (≤1.2 and ≤1.7% NGSP) and a bias ≤2 mmol/mol (≤0.2% NGSP) at 48 and 75 mmol/mol (6.5 and 9.0% NGSP). Sigma for the Afinion2 was 5.8 and for the Quo-Lab 4.0. Both methods passed the NGSP criteria with 2 instruments when compared with 4 individual SRMPs. The HbA1c 501 had a CV of 3.4% and 2.7% in IFCC SI units (2.1% and 1.7% NGSP) and a bias ≤2.4 mmol/mol (≤0.2% NGSP) and passed the NGSP criteria with 2 instruments compared with 4 individual SRMPs except for instrument 2 compared with the Tosoh G8. Sigma was 2.1. The A1Care had a sigma of 1.4 and failed all criteria mainly due to a high CV (6.2% and 4.1% in IFCC SI units [4.1% and 2.9% NGSP] at 48 and 75 mmol/mol [6.5 and 9.0% NGSP]). CONCLUSIONS: The analytical performance was excellent for the Afinion2 and the Quo-Lab, acceptable for the HbA1c 501 and unacceptable for the A1Care according to different used criteria, demonstrating that whilst performance is improving there are still areas for considerable improvement.

Understanding the Use of Sigma Metrics in Hemoglobin A1c Analysis.

This study uses three unique data sets to show the state of the art of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) analyzers in a range of settings and compares their performance against the international guidance set by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine task force for HbA1c standardization. The data are used to show the effect of tightening those criteria, and the study serves as a guide to the practical implementation of the sigma-metrics approach in a range of clinical settings.

Whole Blood Donation Affects the Interpretation of Hemoglobin A1c.

INTRODUCTION: Several factors, including changed dynamics of erythrocyte formation and degradation, can influence the degree of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) formation thereby affecting its use in monitoring diabetes. This study determines the influence of whole blood donation on HbA1c in both non-diabetic blood donors and blood donors with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this observational study, 23 non-diabetic blood donors and 21 blood donors with type 2 diabetes donated 475 mL whole blood and were followed prospectively for nine weeks. Each week blood samples were collected and analyzed for changes in HbA1c using three secondary reference measurement procedures. RESULTS: Twelve non-diabetic blood donors (52.2%) and 10 (58.8%) blood donors with type 2 diabetes had a significant reduction in HbA1c following blood donation (reduction >-4.28%, P < 0.05). All non-diabetic blood donors with a normal ferritin concentration predonation had a significant reduction in HbA1c. In the non-diabetic group the maximum reduction was -11.9%, in the type 2 diabetes group -12.0%. When eligible to donate again, 52.2% of the non-diabetic blood donors and 41.2% of the blood donors with type 2 diabetes had HbA1c concentrations significantly lower compared to their predonation concentration (reduction >-4.28%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with type 2 diabetes contributing to whole blood donation programs can be at risk of falsely lowered HbA1c. This could lead to a wrong interpretation of their glycemic control by their general practitioner or internist.