Statistical methods for monitoring the relationship between the IFCC reference measurement procedure for hemoglobin A1c and the designated comparison methods in the United States, Japan, and Sweden.

BACKGROUND: The American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)/International Diabetes Federation (IDF)/IFCC Consensus Statement on the worldwide standardization of HbA(1c) states that "... [HbA(1c)] results are to be reported world-wide in IFCC units ... and derived NGSP units ... , using the IFCC-NGSP master equation." METHODS: We describe statistical methods to evaluate and monitor the relationships as expressed in master equations (MEs) between the IFCC Reference Measurement procedure (IFCC-RM) and designated comparison methods (DCMs) [US National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP), Japanese Diabetes Society/Japanese Society for Clinical Chemistry (JDS/JSCC), and Mono-S in Sweden]. We applied these statistics, including uncertainty calculations, to 12 studies in which networks of reference laboratories participated, operating the IFCC-RM and DCMs. RESULTS: For NGSP and Mono-S, slope, intercept, and derived percentage HbA(1c) at the therapeutic target show compliance with the respective MEs in all 12 studies. For JDS/JSCC, a slight deviation is seen in slope and derived percentage HbA(1c) in 2 of the 12 studies. Using the MEs, the uncertainty in an assigned value increases from 0.42 mmol/mol HbA(1c) (IFCC-RM) to 0.47 (NGSP), 0.49 (JDS/JSCC), and 0.51 (Mono-S). CONCLUSIONS: We describe sound statistical methods for the investigation of relations between networks of reference laboratories. Application of these statistical methods to the relationship between the IFCC-RM and DCMs in the US, Japan, and Sweden shows that they are suitable for the purpose, and the results support the applicability of the ADA/EASD/IDF/IFCC Consensus Statement on HbA1c measurement.

IFCC reference system for measurement of hemoglobin A1c in human blood and the national standardization schemes in the United States, Japan, and Sweden: a method-comparison study.

BACKGROUND: The national programs for the harmonization of hemoglobin (Hb)A(1c) measurements in the US [National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP)], Japan [Japanese Diabetes Society (JDS)/Japanese Society of Clinical Chemistry (JSCC)], and Sweden are based on different designated comparison methods (DCMs). The future basis for international standardization will be the reference system developed by the IFCC Working Group on HbA(1c) Standardization. The aim of the present study was to determine the relationships between the IFCC Reference Method (RM) and the DCMs. METHODS: Four method-comparison studies were performed in 2001-2003. In each study five to eight pooled blood samples were measured by 11 reference laboratories of the IFCC Network of Reference Laboratories, 9 Secondary Reference Laboratories of the NGSP, 3 reference laboratories of the JDS/JSCC program, and a Swedish reference laboratory. Regression equations were determined for the relationship between the IFCC RM and each of the DCMs. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed between the HbA(1c) results of the IFCC RM and those of the DCMs. Significant differences were also demonstrated between the three DCMs. However, in all cases the relationship of the DCMs with the RM were linear. There were no statistically significant differences between the regression equations calculated for each of the four studies; therefore, the results could be combined. The relationship is described by the following regression equations: NGSP-HbA(1c) = 0.915(IFCC-HbA(1c)) + 2.15% (r(2) = 0.998); JDS/JSCC-HbA(1c) = 0.927(IFCC-HbA(1c)) + 1.73% (r(2) = 0.997); Swedish-HbA(1c) = 0.989(IFCC-HbA(1c)) + 0.88% (r(2) = 0.996). CONCLUSION: There is a firm and reproducible link between the IFCC RM and DCM HbA(1c) values.