Effects of the Norfolk diabetes prevention lifestyle intervention (NDPS) on glycaemic control in screen-detected type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this trial was to test if the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS) lifestyle intervention, recently shown to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in high-risk groups, also improved glycaemic control in people with newly diagnosed screen-detected type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We screened 12,778 participants at high risk of type 2 diabetes using a fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c). People with screen-detected type 2 diabetes were randomised in a parallel, three-arm, controlled trial with up to 46 months of follow-up, with a control arm (CON), a group-based lifestyle intervention of 6 core and up to 15 maintenance sessions (INT), or the same intervention with additional support from volunteers with type 2 diabetes trained to co-deliver the lifestyle intervention (INT-DPM). The pre-specified primary end point was mean HbA1c compared between groups at 12 months. RESULTS: We randomised 432 participants (CON 149; INT 142; INT-DPM 141) with a mean (SD) age of 63.5 (10.0) years, body mass index (BMI) of 32.4 (6.4) kg/m2, and HbA1c of 52.5 (10.2) mmol/mol. The primary outcome of mean HbA1c at 12 months (CON 48.5 (9.1) mmol/mol, INT 46.5 (8.1) mmol/mol, and INT-DPM 45.6 (6.0) mmol/mol) was significantly lower in the INT-DPM arm compared to CON (adjusted difference -2.57 mmol/mol; 95% CI -4.5, -0.6; p = 0.007) but not significantly different between the INT-DPM and INT arms (-0.55 mmol/mol; 95% CI -2.46, 1.35; p = 0.57), or INT vs CON arms (-2.14 mmol/mol; 95% CI -4.33, 0.05; p = 0.07). Subgroup analyses showed the intervention had greater effect in participants < 65 years old (difference in mean HbA1c compared to CON -4.76 mmol/mol; 95% CI -7.75, -1.78 mmol/mol) than in older participants (-0.46 mmol/mol; 95% CI -2.67, 1.75; interaction p = 0.02). This effect was most significant in the INT-DPM arm (-6.01 mmol/mol; 95% CI -9.56, -2.46 age < 65 years old and -0.22 mmol/mol; 95% CI -2.7, 2.25; aged > 65 years old; p = 0.007). The use of oral hypoglycaemic medication was associated with a significantly lower mean HbA1c but only within the INT-DPM arm compared to CON (-7.0 mmol/mol; 95% CI -11.5, -2.5; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The NDPS lifestyle intervention significantly improved glycaemic control after 12 months in people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes when supported by trained peer mentors with type 2 diabetes, particularly those receiving oral hypoglycaemics and those under 65 years old. The effect size was modest, however, and not sustained at 24 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34805606 . Retrospectively registered 14.4.16.

Performance of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quantitative Antibody Assay Including the New Variants of Concern, VOC 202012/V1 (United Kingdom) and VOC 202012/V2 (South Africa), and First Steps towards Global Harmonization of COVID-19 Antibody Methods.

In the initial stages of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) COVID-19 pandemic, a plethora of new serology tests were developed and introduced to the global market. Many were not evaluated rigorously, and there is a significant lack of concordance in results across methods. To enable meaningful clinical decisions to be made, robustly evaluated, quantitative serology methods are needed. These should be harmonized to a primary reference material, allowing for the comparison of trial data and improved clinical decision making. A comprehensive evaluation of the new Abbott IgG II anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG method was undertaken using CLSI-based protocols. Two different candidate primary reference materials and verification panels were assessed with a goal to move toward harmonization. The Abbott IgG II method performed well across a wide range of parameters with excellent imprecision (<3.5%) and was linear throughout the positive range (tested to 38,365 AU/ml). The sensitivity (based on ≥14-day post-positive reverse transcription-PCR [RT-PCR] samples) and specificity were 98.3% (90.6% to 100.0%) and 99.5% (97.1% to 100%), respectively. The candidate reference materials showed poor correlation across methods, with mixed responses noted in methods that use the spike protein versus the nucleocapsid proteins as their binding antigen. The Abbott IgG II anti-SARS-CoV-2 measurement appears to be the first linear method potentially capable of monitoring the immune response to natural infection, including from new emerging variants. The candidate reference materials assessed did not generate uniform results across several methods, and further steps are needed to enable the harmonization process.

The effect of anaemia and abnormalities of erythrocyte indices on HbA1c analysis: a systematic review.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The use of HbA1c for the diagnosis of diabetes is now widely advocated despite caveats to its use. Anaemia is cited as a major confounder to this use; however, the effect of erythrocyte indices and to what degree anaemia influences HbA1c levels is not known. METHODS: A systematic electronic database search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Library was conducted for relevant articles published between January 1990 and May 2014. Included studies had at least one measurement of HbA1c and glucose, and a least one index of haematinic deficiency, involving non-pregnant adults, not known to have diabetes. RESULTS: A total of 12 articles from 544 were included. The majority of studies focused on iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) and, in general, demonstrated that the presence of iron deficiency with or without anaemia led to an increase in HbA1c values compared with controls, with no concomitant rise in glucose indices. Data on the effects of other indices of erythrocyte abnormalities on HbA1c are limited but show a possible decrease in HbA1c values with non-iron deficiency forms of anaemia. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: HbA1c is likely to be affected by iron deficiency and IDA with a spurious increase in HbA1c values; conversely, non-IDA may lead to a decreased HbA1c value. This may lead to confusion when diagnosing diabetes using HbA1c. This review clearly identifies the need for more evidence, especially in identifying the types and degrees of anaemia likely to have significant impact on the reliability of HbA1c.

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.

Age and vitamin D affect the magnitude of the antibody response to the first dose of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Most approved vaccines utilise a two-dose strategy. To enable larger groups of patients to receive the first dose, the UK government increased the gap between the two doses from three to twelve weeks. Here we report on the immunogenicity of the first dose, including effect of age and vitamin D status on these levels over an 8 week-period. METHODS: Blood samples were collected from healthcare workers (HCW) receiving their first BNT162b2 vaccine dose between January and February 2021. Antibody (Ab) production was measured, prior to and weekly for 4 weeks post immunization, and a final measurement was performed at 8 weeks. Serum vitamin D concentrations were also measured at baseline. FINDINGS: Immunization of 97 HCW induced an Ab response that peaked 3•2 weeks post immunization to decrease thereafter. Ab levels remained positive at 8 weeks. IgG peak concentration was negatively associated with age (ß=-0•440, p<0.001). Response to immunization was also significantly affected by vitamin D status (p=0•022), on average 29•3% greater peak value in individuals with 25(OH)D>50nmol/L. No other variable showed significant effect. INTERPRETATION: The first dose of BNT162b2 produced Ab levels that remained positive after 8 weeks. Peak was greater in younger subjects and 25(OH)D>50nmol/L was beneficial. Booster campaigns should take into consideration vitamin D status which is at its highest following a period of sunshine exposure or following oral supplementation (400-1000IU daily). FUNDING: Abbott Diagnostics Ltd supplied the kits used to quantify the anti-SARS -CoV-2 Spike IgG and technical support as well as provided financial support for sample collections.

Validation and feasibility of a postal system for remote monitoring of HbA1c.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has reduced the accessibility to hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) tests required for virtual diabetes clinics. The aim was to develop and validate a user-friendly postal system for remote HbA1c monitoring. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Validation: A total of 123 capillary blood samples from people with diabetes (PWD) needing face-to-face consultations along with healthy volunteers were measured on a point-of-care (POC) Siemens DCA Vantage Analyzer. Another sample of 5-10 drops was simultaneously collected in a K2EDTA tube (BD Microtainer) and stored for up to 12 days at room temperature for subsequent retesting. Feasibility: During October to December 2020, a total of 286 postal HbA1c kits were sent to PWD prior to their virtual consultation. These contained sample collection guidance, the necessary equipment and a feedback form. As per Packing Instruction 650 regulations, these were posted back to the diabetes center for HbA1c testing on the POC analyzer. RESULTS: There was a strong correlation between the first and the stored sample (R2=0.978). There was a small clinically insignificant negative bias -1.53 mmol/mol (2 SD = 3.10 mmol/mol). Bland-Altman plots showed 93% of results within 2 SD. Of the 87% of returned kits, only one sample failed to be analyzed. 94% of PWD who provided feedback were happy to use the postal HbA1c system again. CONCLUSIONS: A robust user-friendly postal HbA1c system has been created and successfully integrated into clinical practice using the existing POC equipment at the diabetes center. It provides accurate HbA1c results and is an invaluable tool for remote monitoring of HbA1c in PWD-both during and after the pandemic.

Diagnosing type 2 diabetes using Hemoglobin A1c: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic cutpoint based on microvascular complications.

AIMS: Diabetic microvascular complications of retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy may occur at hemoglobin A1c levels (HbA1c) below the 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) diagnostic threshold. Our objective was to assess the validity of the HbA1c diagnostic cutpoint of 6.5% based upon published evidence of the prevalence of retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy as markers of diabetes. METHODS: Data Sources PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and CINAHL from 1990-March 2019, grey literature sources. Study Selection All studies reported after 1990 (to ensure standardized HbA1c values) where HbA1c levels were presented in relation to prevalence of retinopathy, nephropathy or neuropathy in subjects not known to have diabetes. Data Extraction Studies were screened independently, data abstracted, and risk of bias appraised. Data Synthesis Data were synthesized using HbA1c categories of < 6.0% (< 42 mmol/mol), 6.0-6.4% (42-47 mmol/mol) and ≥ 6.5% (≥ 48 mmol/mol). Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy prevalence stratified by HbA1c categories. Random-effects multivariable meta-regression was conducted to identify predictors of retinopathy prevalence and sources of between-study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Pooled mean prevalence was: 4.0%(95% CI: 3.2-5.0%) for retinopathy, 10.5% (95% CI: 4.0-19.5%) for nephropathy, 2.5% (95% CI: 1.1-4.3%) for neuropathy. Mean prevalence when stratified for HbA1c < 6.0%, 6.0-6.4% and ≥ 6.5% was: retinopathy: 3.4% (95% CI: 1.8-5.4%), 2.3% (95% CI: 1.6-3.2%) and 7.8%(95% CI: 5.7-10.3%); nephropathy: 7.1% (95% CI: 1.7-15.9%), 9.6% (95% CI: 0.8-26.4%) and 17.1% (95% CI: 1.0-46.9%); neuropathy: 2.1% (95% CI: 0.0-6.8%), 3.4% (95% CI: 0.0-11.6%) and 2.8% (95% CI: 0.0-12.8%). Multivariable meta-regression showed HbA1c ≥ 6.5% (OR: 4.05; 95% CI: 1.92-8.57%), age > 55 (OR: 3.23; 95% CI 1.81-5.77), and African-American race (OR: 10.73; 95% CI: 4.34-26.55), to be associated with higher retinopathy prevalence. Marked heterogeneity in prevalence estimates was found across all meta-analyses (Cochran's Q-statistic p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of nephropathy and moderate retinopathy was increased in subjects with HbA1c values ≥ 6.5% confirming the high specificity of this value for diagnosing T2DM; however, at HbA1c < 6.5% retinopathy increased at age > 55 years and, most strikingly, in African-Americans, suggesting there may be excess microvascular complication prevalence (particularly nephropathy) in individuals below the diabetes diagnostic threshold.

Lifestyle Intervention With or Without Lay Volunteers to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes in People With Impaired Fasting Glucose and/or Nondiabetic Hyperglycemia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Nearly half of the older adult population has diabetes or a high-risk intermediate glycemic category, but we still lack trial evidence for effective type 2 diabetes prevention interventions in most of the current high-risk glycemic categories. Objective: To determine whether a group-based lifestyle intervention (with or without trained volunteers with type 2 diabetes) reduced the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes in populations with a high-risk glycemic category. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study was a parallel, 3-arm, group-based, randomized clinical trial conducted with up to 46 months of follow-up from August 2011 to January 2019 at 135 primary care practices and 8 intervention sites in the East of England. We identified 141 973 people at increased risk of type 2 diabetes, screened 12 778 (9.0%), and randomized those with a high-risk glycemic category, which was either an elevated fasting plasma glucose level alone (≥110 and <126 mg/dL [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555]) or an elevated glycated hemoglobin level (≥6.0% to <6.5%; nondiabetic hyperglycemia) with an elevated fasting plasma glucose level (≥100 to <110 mg/dL). Interventions: A control arm receiving usual care (CON), a theory-based lifestyle intervention arm of 6 core and up to 15 maintenance sessions (INT), or the same intervention with support from diabetes prevention mentors, trained volunteers with type 2 diabetes (INT-DPM). Main Outcomes and Measures: Type 2 diabetes incidence between arms. Results: In this study, 1028 participants were randomized (INT, 424 [41.2%] [166 women (39.2%)]; INT-DPM, 426 [41.4%] [147 women (34.5%)]; CON, 178 [17.3%] [70 women (%39.3)]) between January 1, 2011, and February 24, 2017. The mean (SD) age was 65.3 (10.0) years, mean (SD) body mass index 31.2 (5) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), and mean (SD) follow-up 24.7 (13.4) months. A total of 156 participants progressed to type 2 diabetes, which comprised 39 of 171 receiving CON (22.8%), 55 of 403 receiving INT (13.7%), and 62 of 414 receiving INT-DPM (15.0%). There was no significant difference between the intervention arms in the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.7; P = .51), but each intervention arm had significantly lower odds of type 2 diabetes (INT: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.85; P = .01; INT-DPM: OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .033; combined: OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.87; P = .01). The effect size was similar in all glycemic, age, and social deprivation groups, and intervention costs per participant were low at $153 (£122). Conclusions and Relevance: The Norfolk Diabetes Prevention lifestyle intervention reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes in current high-risk glycemic categories. Enhancing the intervention with DPM did not further reduce diabetes risk. These translatable results are relevant for current diabetes prevention efforts. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry Identifier: ISRCTN34805606.

Experience of point-of-care HbA1c testing in the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme: an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: To report the observations of point-of-care (POC) glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) testing in people with non-diabetic hyperglycemia (NDH; HbA1c 42-47 mmol/mol (6.0%-6.4%)), applied in community settings, within the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A service evaluation assessing prospectively collected national service-level data from the NHS DPP, using data from the first referral received in June 2016-October 2018. Individuals were referred to the NHS DPP with a laboratory-measured HbA1c in the NDH range and had a repeat HbA1c measured at first attendance of the program using one of three POC devices: DCA Vantage, Afinion or A1C Now+. Differences between the referral and POC HbA1c and the SD of the POC HbA1c were calculated. The factors associated with the difference in HbA1c and the association between POC HbA1c result and subsequent attendance of the NHS DPP were also evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 73 703 participants demonstrated a significant mean difference between the referral and POC HbA1c of -2.48 mmol/mol (-0.23%) (t=157, p<0.001) with significant differences in the mean difference between devices (F(2, 73 700)=738, p<0.001). The SD of POC HbA1c was 4.46 mmol/mol (0.41%) with significant differences in SDs between devices (F(2, 73 700)=1542, p<0.001). Participants who were older, from more deprived areas and from Asian, black and mixed ethnic groups were associated with smaller HbA1c differences. Normoglycemic POC HbA1c versus NDH POC HbA1c values were associated with lower subsequent attendance at behavioral interventions (58% vs 67%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: POC HbA1c testing in community settings was associated with significantly lower HbA1c values when compared with laboratory-measured referrals. Acknowledging effects of regression to the mean, we found that these differences were also associated with POC method, location, individual patient factors and time between measurements. Compared with POC HbA1c values in the NDH range, normoglycemic POC HbA1c values were associated with lower subsequent intervention attendance.

Discordance in glycemic categories and regression to normality at baseline in 10,000 people in a Type 2 diabetes prevention trial.

The world diabetes population quadrupled between 1980 and 2014 to 422 million and the enormous impact of Type 2 diabetes is recognised by the recent creation of national Type 2 diabetes prevention programmes. There is uncertainty about how to correctly risk stratify people for entry into prevention programmes, how combinations of multiple 'at high risk' glycemic categories predict outcome, and how the large recently defined 'at risk' population based on an elevated glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) should be managed. We identified all 141,973 people at highest risk of diabetes in our population, and screened 10,000 of these with paired fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c for randomisation into a very large Type 2 diabetes prevention trial. Baseline discordance rate between highest risk categories was 45.6%, and 21.3-37.0% of highest risk glycaemic categories regressed to normality between paired baseline measurements (median 40 days apart). Accurate risk stratification using both fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c data, the use of paired baseline data, and awareness of diagnostic imprecision at diagnostic thresholds would avoid substantial overestimation of the true risk of Type 2 diabetes and the potential benefits (or otherwise) of intervention, in high risk subjects entering prevention trials and programmes.

Hypovitaminosis D is associated with reductions in serum apolipoprotein A-I but not with fasting lipids in British Bangladeshis.

BACKGROUND: Although hypovitaminosis D has been suggested to increase the risk of heart disease, its relation to components of the fasting lipid profile has not been clarified for specific ethnic groups. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine the relation of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations to fasting lipid concentrations in South Asian subjects at risk of hypovitaminosis D. DESIGN: The present study was conducted in 170 British Bangladeshi adults, 69 men and 101 women, from east London who were free of known diabetes or chronic disorders. Vitamin D repletion was assessed by measuring fasting serum 25(OH)D concentrations. Fasting lipid profiles were measured as part of a study of the risk factors for type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease, which included hypovitaminosis D. RESULTS: A univariate analysis showed that total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and both apolipoprotein (apo) A-I and apo B concentrations correlated directly with serum 25(OH)D concentrations. However, a multiple regression analysis, which included all the documented risk factors for diabetes and ischemic heart disease, showed that the 25(OH)D concentration (vitamin D status) was an independent predictor of increasing apo A-I concentrations (standardized coefficient beta = 0.3; P < 0.001) but not of fasting lipid concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of British South Asians, the data showed a positive relation of fasting apo A-I concentrations to serum 25(OH)D concentrations, independent of glycemia and other dietary, anthropometric, and lifestyle risk factors for type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease after multiple regression analyses. Subjects with hypovitaminosis D are likely to have an increased risk of ischemic heart disease independent of their increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

Diagnostic accuracy of calculated serum osmolarity to predict dehydration in older people: adding value to pathology laboratory reports.

OBJECTIVES: To assess which osmolarity equation best predicts directly measured serum/plasma osmolality and whether its use could add value to routine blood test results through screening for dehydration in older people. DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study. PARTICIPANTS: Older people (≥65 years) in 5 cohorts: Dietary Strategies for Healthy Ageing in Europe (NU-AGE, living in the community), Dehydration Recognition In our Elders (DRIE, living in residential care), Fortes (admitted to acute medical care), Sjöstrand (emergency room) or Pfortmueller cohorts (hospitalised with liver cirrhosis). REFERENCE STANDARD FOR HYDRATION STATUS: Directly measured serum/plasma osmolality: current dehydration (serum osmolality>300 mOsm/kg), impending/current dehydration (≥295 mOsm/kg). INDEX TESTS: 39 osmolarity equations calculated using serum indices from the same blood draw as directly measured osmolality. RESULTS: Across 5 cohorts 595 older people were included, of whom 19% were dehydrated (directly measured osmolality>300 mOsm/kg). Of 39 osmolarity equations, 5 showed reasonable agreement with directly measured osmolality and 3 had good predictive accuracy in subgroups with diabetes and poor renal function. Two equations were characterised by narrower limits of agreement, low levels of differential bias and good diagnostic accuracy in receiver operating characteristic plots (areas under the curve>0.8). The best equation was osmolarity=1.86×(Na++K+)+1.15×glucose+urea+14 (all measured in mmol/L). It appeared useful in people aged ≥65 years with and without diabetes, poor renal function, dehydration, in men and women, with a range of ages, health, cognitive and functional status. CONCLUSIONS: Some commonly used osmolarity equations work poorly, and should not be used. Given costs and prevalence of dehydration in older people we suggest use of the best formula by pathology laboratories using a cutpoint of 295 mOsm/L (sensitivity 85%, specificity 59%), to report dehydration risk opportunistically when serum glucose, urea and electrolytes are measured for other reasons in older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: DRIE: Research Register for Social Care, 122273; NU-AGE: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01754012.

A review of the challenge in measuring hemoglobin A1c.

The attraction of the simple biochemical concept combined with a clinical requirement for a long-term marker of glycolic control in diabetes has made hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) one of the most important assays undertaken in the medical laboratory. The diversity in the biochemistry of glycation, clinical requirements, and management demands has resulted in a broad range of methods being developed since HbA1c was described in the late 1960s. A range of analytic principles are used for the measurement of HbA1c. The charge difference between hemoglobin A0 and HbA1c has been widely utilized to separate these two fractions, most notably found these days in ion-exchange high-performance liquid chromatography systems; the difference in molecular structure (affinity chromatography and immunochemical methods) are becoming widely available. Different results found in different laboratories using a variety of HbA1c analyses resulted in the need for standardization, most notably in the United States, Japan, and Sweden. Designated comparison methods are now located in these three countries, but as they are arbitrarily chosen and have differences in specificity, results of these methods and the reference values and action limits of the methods differ and only harmonized HbA1c in specific geographic areas. A reference measurement system within the concept of metrological traceability is now globally accepted as the only valid analytic anchor. However, there is still discussion over the units to be reported. The consensus statement of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), the American Diabetes Association, the International Diabetes Federation, and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes suggests reporting HbA1c in IFCC units (mmol/mol), National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program units (%), and estimated average glucose (either in mg/dl or mmol/liter). The implementation of this consensus statement raised new questions, to be answered in a concerted action of clinicians, biochemists, external quality assessment organizers, patient groups, and manufacturers.