Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Comparative Analytical Performance of Various Hba1c Assays in Iran Pubmed



Razi F1 ; Farzami MR2 ; Ebrahimi SA3 ; Nahid M3 ; Bigdeli MG3 ; Sheidaei A4, 5 ; Ghasemian A5 ; Tootee A1 ; Keramati T6 ; Esfahani EN1 ; Larijani B6 ; Pasalar P7
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Diabetes Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  2. 2. Reference Health Laboratory of Iran, Ministry of Health, Tehran, Iran
  3. 3. Massoud Clinical Laboratory, Tehran, Iran
  4. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  5. 5. Non-Communicable Disease Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Science Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  6. 6. Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  7. 7. Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Source: Archives of Iranian Medicine Published:2016


Abstract

Introduction: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement devices are widely used to evaluate glycemic control in diabetic patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the comparability of various HbA1c instruments used in Iran. Methods: In the present study, 154 fresh whole blood samples from diabetic patients, with different HbA1c levels (4.0%-10%) and no types of hemoglobinopathy were analyzed by six HbA1c assays including one high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method (D10 HbA1c), two immunoassay methods (COBAS INTEGRA400 and ParsAzmoon kit), one Boronate affinity method (Nycocard Reader II), and two ion exchange methods (Biosystems and DS5). The two National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Programs (NGSP) certified system, D10 and COBAS INTEGRA 400 which are certified as secondary reference measurement procedures, were considered as reference methods. The CLSI document (EP9-A2)-Method comparison and Bias estimation using patient samples, approved guideline-was used to compare the performance of different HbA1c instruments. Results: The mean of HbA1c in all four types of assays was less than the reference methods (P-value < 0.01).The mean of absolute difference between the reference methods was the least (0.11%). Among the other four tests, Biosystems had the smallest mean of difference (-0.21%), while ParsAzmoon had the highest (-1.18%). ParsAzmoon showed the greatest difference (95% confidence interval) when compared to D10 [-15.5%(-5.7%to -25.3%)] and COBAS INTEGRA [-17% (-9.16% to -24.84%)]. The highest regression slope (B) was found in DS5 method (0.96) in regression model with both reference methods. Conclusion: It can be concluded that although HbA1c standardization programs have resulted in great improvements in the comparability of HbA1c assays, unacceptable errors still exist and further national and international projects are required for standardization of HbA1c measurement. In this situation, it is recommended to use the same laboratory for HbA1c measurement to monitor diabetic patients. © 2016, Academy of Medical Sciences of the I.R. Iran.