Open Access

Haemoglobin A1c: comparing performance of two point of care devices with laboratory analyser

  • Ruziana Mona Wan Mohd Zin1Email author,
  • Zati Iwani Ahmad Kamil1,
  • Tuan Rosidah Tuan Soh1,
  • Mustaffa Embong2, 3 and
  • Wan Nazaimoon Wan Mohamud1
BMC Research Notes20136:540

https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-6-540

Received: 14 August 2013

Accepted: 15 November 2013

Published: 18 December 2013

Abstract

Background

Measurement of HbA1c has been widely used for long-term monitoring and management of diabetes control. There is increasing use of point-of-care (POC) devices for measuring HbA1c where quicker results would allow immediate clinical management decisions to be made. Therefore, it is important to evaluate and compare the performance of such devices to the reference laboratory method.

Findings

A total of 274 venous blood was collected from normal healthy adults during the community screening programmes. The performance of POC devices, Afinion and Quo-test were compared to central laboratory HPLC method; Adams A1c HA 8160. Both POC devices showed good correlation to HA 8160 with r = 0.94 (p < 0.001) and r = 0.95 (p < 0.001) for Afinion and Quo-test respectively. The means difference were statistically higher between POC and HA 8160 with 0.23% (95% CI 0.19-0.26, p < 0.001) and 0.29% (95% CI 0.24-0.34, p < 0.001) for Afinion and Quo-test respectively.

Conclusions

Both POC devices could be considered in health clinics for diabetes management but not to be used for the diagnostic purposes.

Keywords

HbA1c Point-of-care Diabetes

Findings

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM), especially type 2 diabetes has become a major concern globally and imposes debilitating health issues, especially in low and middle income countries. International Diabetes Federation (IDF) currently reported that half of people with diabetes are undiagnosed [1]. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes among Malaysian adults has risen to 22.6% [2] compared to 14.9% in 2006 [3]. Furthermore, onset of diabetes is often left undetected due to no apparent clinical symptoms, and complications may begin 4 to 7 years before clinical diagnosis [4]. However, public screening for diabetes can be challenging as prior arrangement has to be made to ensure subject fasted for 8 to 10 hours.

Measurement of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in blood has been widely used as a routine method for monitoring long term glycaemic status in patients with diabetes mellitus. The HbA1c level provides the clinician the indication of patient’s average glycaemic control over the past two to three months [5]. Large trials such as Diabetes Control and Complication Trial Research [6] and UK Prospective Diabetes Study [7] found that HbA1c levels correlate with the risk of developing diabetes associated micro- and macrovascular complications. More recently, the International Expert Committee has endorsed the use of HbA1c as a diagnostic tool for diabetes [8].

Over the last years, new devices have been developed which allowed rapid HbA1c determination from capillary blood instead of conventional venipuncture [9]. HbA1c determinations using point-of-care (POC) testing required minimal personnel training and can be easily operated by doctors as well as nurses [10]. By prompt availability of results, POC could minimize patient inconvenience by avoiding extra visit to the clinic and immediate treatment could be instituted [11]. Studies have confirmed that immediate feedback of HbA1c results improves glycaemic control in diabetic patients [1215].

There is a need to ensure POC measurement of HbA1c provides reliable results that are comparable to central laboratory analysis. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the performance of two types of POC devices, Afinion and Quo-test HbA1c and compare to Adams A1c HA 8160, a Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) aligned cationic-exchange high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analyser.

Materials and methods

Laboratory method

The central laboratory determined HbA1c using cationic exchange high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using Adams A1c HA-8160 (ARKRAY Inc, Kyoto, Japan). All reagents, controls and calibrators used for this method followed National Glycohemoglobin Standardisation Programme (NGSP) guidelines.

Point-of-care devices method

Both Afinion (Axis-Shield, Oslo, Norway) and Quo-test (Quotient Diagnostics, Surrey, United Kingdom) are based on a boronate affinity binding method, which has been standardised to the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) reference system [16] for HbA1c and aligned to the DCCT standards via the NGSP. The POC systems were designed to operate with ready to use cartridges with results available in 3 minutes. Both devices can accept capillary or venous blood collected by venipuncture into EDTA tubes.

Blood sample collection

Our subjects were apparently healthy adults who came for community screening for diabetes programme organised by National Diabetes Institute, which was held in Klang Valley. Ethical approval was obtained from The Human Research Ethics Committee, Universiti Sains Malaysia. All subjects gave written informed consent for participation. Venous blood was collected in EDTA tube and was kept at 4°C and analysed within 48 hours. A total of 274 blood samples were collected and analysed for HbA1c using Adams A1c HA 8160, of which 135 samples were simultaneously analysed using Afinion while another batch of 139 samples collected at another occasion, were also analysed for HbA1c using Quo-test. Blood samples were also collected for fasting glucose level and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS software v16.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, USA). Paired t-test was used to determine the significant differences between the groups and Pearson linear correlation coefficient was used to determine the method correlation. Bland-Altman plots were generated using Microsoft Excel.

Results and discussion

Both POC devices showed good correlation to HA 8160 with r = 0.94, p < 0.001 and r = 0.95, p < 0.001 for Afinion (Figure 1A) and Quo-test (Figure 1B) respectively. The means difference were statistically higher between POC and HA 8160 with 0.23% (95% CI 0.19-0.26, p < 0.001) and 0.29% (95% CI 0.24-0.34, p < 0.001) for Afinion and Quo-test respectively (Table 1). Bland-Altman Plot showed 6 samples were out of 2 SD range for Afinion (Figure 2A) and 4 samples were out of 2 SD range for Quo-test (Figure 2B). Based on WHO criteria, 8.1% and 20.9% were found to have diabetes with mean HbA1c of 6.5% and 7.1% for Afinion and Quo-test respectively.
Figure 1

Method correlation of (A) Afinion and (B) Quo-test compared with HA8160. The solid line indicates the linear regression whereas the dashed line indicates 95% confidence interval.

Table 1

Comparison of means difference between point-of-care devices and laboratory analyser

 

Mean difference

95% confidence interval

P

Afinion - HA 8160

0.23

0.19 - 0.26

< 0.001

Quo-test - HA 8160

0.29

0.24 - 0.34

< 0.001

Figure 2

Bland Altman difference plots of (A) Afinion and (B) Quo-test compared with HA8160. The solid line indicates the mean difference whereas the dashed lines indicate upper and lower limit of agreement.

Considerable effort has been invested in research and technological development of new POC method that arose from a desire to improve clinical services through a shorter turnaround time for laboratory tests. It has been recognised that POC devices should produce comparable results to laboratory reference method. This study showed that both Afinion and Quo-test devices generated significantly higher HbA1c results compared to HA 8160. In agreement with previously published studies [17, 18], this could be attributed by differences in methodology or calibration of devices used. Petersen JR [19] reported that Afinion increasingly underestimated the HbA1c as HPLC HbA1c increased; although management decisions based on HbA1c in the very high range are likely not affected.

It has been recommended that HbA1c assays should have a total intralaboratory imprecision (coefficient of variation, CV) of less than 3% for realistic goal [20] and less than 2% for desirable goal [21]. The CV for Afinion ranged from 0.5% to 2.66% [18, 19, 22] and from 2.9% to 5.9% for Quo-test [23]. Hence HbA1c results from POC assays are not recommended for diagnosis of diabetes [24].

Studies in Asian populations have shown the optimal diagnostic cut-off point for HbA1c is 6.3% [2, 25] instead of 6.5% as recommended by the International Expert Committee. In this study, samples with HbA1c levels higher than 6.3% were from subjects who were diagnosed to have DM based on WHO criteria of fasting plasma glucose ≥ 7.0 mmol/l and/or 2 hour OGTT glucose ≥ 11.1 mmol/l [26]. Hence, HbA1c results from POC assays are suitable for diabetes management.

Although both POC devices showed good correlation in this study, we acknowledge there were few limitations; interference from haemoglobin variants was not evaluated, the study did not include the higher HbA1c levels since samples were from community screening programmes, and diabetes status was determined from a single measurement when ideally diagnosis should be confirmed by repeat testing on a different day.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both Afinion and Quo-test HbA1c POC devices could be considered in health clinics with minimal laboratory facilities for diabetes management, but not to be used for the diagnostic purposes. POC devices have the advantage of being able to measure HbA1c on site and permit rapid testing using capillary blood samples.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Director-General of Health Malaysia, Deputy Director-General of Health (Research and Technical Support) and the Director of the Institute for Medical Research for permission to publish this paper. This study was funded by the National Diabetes Institute, Kuala Lumpur. Ruziana Mona Wan Zin and Zati Iwani Ahmad Kamil were supported by the Fogarty International Centre, National Institutes of Health, under Award Number D43TW008332 (ASCEND Research Network). The contents of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the ASCEND Research Network.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Diabetes & Endocrine, Cardiovascular Diabetes and Nutrition Research Centre, Institute for Medical Research
(2)
Department of Medical, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia
(3)
National Diabetes Institute

References

  1. IDF diabetes atlas update. 2012,http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas,
  2. Wan Nazaimoon WM, Md Isa SH, Wan Mohamad WB, Khir AS, Kamaruddin NA, Kamarul IM, Mustafa N, Ismail IS, Ali O, Khalid BA: Prevalence of diabetes in Malaysia and usefulness of HbA1c as a diagnostic criterion. Diabet Med. 2013, 30: 825-828. 10.1111/dme.12161.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Letchuman GR, Wan Nazaimoon WM, Wan Mohamad WB, Chandran LR, Tee GH, Jamaiyah H: Prevalance of diabetes in the Malaysia National Health Morbidity Survey III 2006. Med J Malaysia. 2010, 65: 173-179.Google Scholar
  4. Harris MI, Klein R, Welborn TA, Knuiman MW: Onset of NIDDM occurs at least 4–7 years before clinical diagnosis. Diabetes Care. 1992, 15: 815-819. 10.2337/diacare.15.7.815.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Gonen B, Rubeinstein AH, Rockman H, Tanega SP, Horwitz DL: Haemoglobin A1c: an indicator of the metabolic control of diabetics. Lancet. 1997, 11: 734-737.Google Scholar
  6. DCCT Research Group: The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long term complications in insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993, 329: 977-986.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. UK prospective diabetes study (UKPDS) group: Intensive blood glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998, 352: 837-853.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. International Expert Committee: International Expert Committee report on the role of the A1c assay in the diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009, 32: 1327-1334.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Tamborlane WV, Kollman C, Steffes MW, Ruedy KJ, Dongyuan X, Beck RW, Chase P, Fox LA, Wilson DM, Tsalikian E: Comparison of fingerstick haemoglobin A1c levels assayed by DCA 2000 with the DCCT/EDIC central laboratory assay: results of a Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirectNet) study. Pediatr Diabetes. 2005, 6: 13-16.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. St John A, Davis TM, Goodall I, Townsend MA, Price CP: Nurse-based evaluation of point of care assays for glycated haemoglobin. Clin Chim Acta. 2006, 365: 257-263. 10.1016/j.cca.2005.09.003.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Miller CD, Barnes CS, Phillipas LS, Ziemer DC, Gallina DL, Cook CB, Maryman SD, El-Kebbi IM: Rapid A1c availability improves clinical decision making in an urban primary care clinic. Diabetes Care. 2003, 26: 1158-1163. 10.2337/diacare.26.4.1158.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Cagliero E, Levina EV, Nathan DM: Immediate feedback of HbA1c levels improves glyceamic control in type 1 and insulin treated type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 1999, 22: 1785-1789. 10.2337/diacare.22.11.1785.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Shephard MD, Gill JP: Results of an innovative education, training and quality assurance program for point of care HbA1c testing using the Bayer DCA 2000 in Australia Aboriginal Community controlled health services. Clin Biochem Rev. 2003, 24: 123-130.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Petersen JR, Finley JB, Okorodudu AO, Mohammad AA, Grady JJ, Bajaj M: Effect of point of care on maintenance of glycemic control as measured by A1c. Diabetes Care. 2007, 30: 713-715. 10.2337/dc06-1909.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Nichols JH, Christenson RH, Clarke W, Gronowski A, Hammett-Stabler CA, Jacobs E: Evidence based practice for point of care testing: A NACB laboratory medicine practice guideline. Clin Chim Acta. 2007, 379: 14-28. 10.1016/j.cca.2006.12.025.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeppsson JO, Kobold U, Bar J, Finke A, Hoelzel W, Hoshino T, Miedema K, Mosca A, Mauri P, Paroni R, Thienpont L, Umemoto M, Weykamp C: Approved IFCC reference method for the measurement of HbA1c in human blood. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2002, 40: 78-89.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Wood JR, Kaminski BM, Kollman C, Beck RW, Hall CA, Yun JP, Cengiz E, Haller MJ, Hassan K, Klingensmith GJ, Tamborlane WV: Accuracy and precision of the axis-shield Afinion haemoglobin A1c measurement device. J Diabetes Sci Techno. 2012, 6: 380-386.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Sanchez-Mora CS, Rodriguez-Oliva M, Fernandez-Riejos P, Mateo J, Polo-Padillo J, Goberna R, Sanchez-Margalet V: Evaluation of two HbA1c point of care analyzers. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011, 49: 653-657.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Petersen JR, Omoruyi FO, Mohammad AA, Shea TJ, Okorodudu AO, Ju H: Haemoglobin A1c: assessment of three POC analysers relative to a central laboratory method. Clin Chim Acta. 2010, 411: 2062-2066. 10.1016/j.cca.2010.09.004.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Shephard M: Analytical goals for point of care testing used for diabetes management in Australian health care settings outside the laboratory. Point Care. 2006, 5: 177-185.Google Scholar
  21. Goodall I, Colman PG, Schneider HG, Mclean M, Barker G: Desirable performance standards for HbA1c analysis-precision, accuracy and standardisation: Consensus statement of the Australia Association of Clinical Biochemists (AACB), the Australia Diabetes Society (ADS), the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia (RCPA), Endocrine Society of Australia (ESA), and the Australian Diabetes Educators Association (ADEA). Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007, 45: 1083-1097.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Lenters-Westra E, Slingerland RJ: Six of eight haemoglobin A1c point of care instruments do not meet the general accepted analytical performance criteria. Clin Chem. 2010, 56: 44-52. 10.1373/clinchem.2009.130641.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Lenters-Westra E, Slingerland RJ: Evaluation of the Quo-test haemoglobin A1c point of care instrument: second chance. Clin Chem. 2010, 56: 1191-1193. 10.1373/clinchem.2010.143149.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. American Diabetes Association: Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2010, 33: 62-69.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Tavintharan S, Chew LSW, Heng DMK: A rational alternative for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in high risk individuals. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2010, 29: 213-218.Google Scholar
  26. Alberti KGMM, Zimmet PZ: Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Part 1: diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Provisional report of a WHO Consultation. Diabet Med. 1998, 15: 539-553. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9136(199807)15:7<539::AID-DIA668>3.0.CO;2-S.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Wan Mohd Zin et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.