Hemoglobin A1c: Assessment of three POC analyzers relative to a central laboratory method
Glycosylated hemoglobin evaluation is very important for assessing the control of diabetes. Since the use of point-of-care (POC) devices for monitoring HbA1c is increasing, it is important to determine how these devices compare in relation to instrumentation used in the central laboratory (CL). Eigh...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinica chimica acta 2010-12, Vol.411 (23), p.2062-2066 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2066 |
---|---|
container_issue | 23 |
container_start_page | 2062 |
container_title | Clinica chimica acta |
container_volume | 411 |
creator | Petersen, John R. Omoruyi, Felix O. Mohammad, Amin A. Shea, Thomas J. Okorodudu, Anthony O. Ju, Hyunsu |
description | Glycosylated hemoglobin evaluation is very important for assessing the control of diabetes. Since the use of point-of-care (POC) devices for monitoring HbA1c is increasing, it is important to determine how these devices compare in relation to instrumentation used in the central laboratory (CL).
Eighty-eight randomly selected samples previously analyzed using the Bio-Rad Variant™ II Hemoglobin Testing System were run on three POC Analyzers (Siemens DCA Vantage™ Analyzer, Axis-Shield Afinion™ AS100 Analyzer, and Bio-Rad In2it™ Analyzer).
All POC instruments showed good correlation to the CL method (R
2
>
0.95 for all methods). HbA1c levels obtained using Variant II (mean
=
7.9; 95% CI
=
7.5–8.3%) and In2it (mean
=
7.9; 95% C.I.
=
7.5
–8.2%) instruments were found to have no statistical mean difference (
p
=
0.21), while the values obtained using DCA Vantage (mean
=
7.2% C.I.
=
6.9
–7.5%) and Afinion (mean
=
7.3% C.I.
=
7.0
–7.6%) instruments were different (
p
<
0.001) from those of the CL method. The Afinion and DCA Vantage instruments increasingly underestimated the HbA1c compared to the CL as the HbA1c values increased. These differences were even more striking when the estimated average glucose is calculated.
Despite significant variation of results among the POC instruments evaluated relative to the CL method and pending resolution of HbA1c standardization issues, we conclude that all of the POC instruments can be used for HbA1c determination if clinicians are given instrument specific reference ranges. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.cca.2010.09.004 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_757462303</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S000989811000570X</els_id><sourcerecordid>757462303</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-b5e48af0120dfde632eb15112a4d6ba9123367717bb780bd8963731b10c229d53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtuFDEQRS0EIpPAB7BB3rHqocrul8lqNAokUqSwgAUry49q0qPudrA9kSZfj6NJssyqdKVzr1SHsU8IawRsv-7Wzpm1gJJBrQHqN2yFfScrWSvxlq0AQFW96vGEnaa0K7GGFt-zEwG9FFLJFftzSXP4OwU7LnyD7hvfpEQpzbRkHgaebyMR_3mz5WYx0-GBYuKRJpPHe-I5cMNdIaOZ-GRsiCaHeOAz5dvgP7B3g5kSfXy6Z-z394tf28vq-ubH1XZzXTnZiFzZhureDIAC_OCplYIsNojC1L61RqGQsu067KzterC-V63sJFoEJ4TyjTxjX467dzH821PKeh6To2kyC4V90l3T1a2QIAuJR9LFkFKkQd_FcTbxoBH0o1C900WofhSqQemiq3Q-P63v7Uz-pfFssADnR4DKj_cjRZ3cSIsjP0ZyWfswvjL_H_uPhOc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>757462303</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Hemoglobin A1c: Assessment of three POC analyzers relative to a central laboratory method</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Petersen, John R. ; Omoruyi, Felix O. ; Mohammad, Amin A. ; Shea, Thomas J. ; Okorodudu, Anthony O. ; Ju, Hyunsu</creator><creatorcontrib>Petersen, John R. ; Omoruyi, Felix O. ; Mohammad, Amin A. ; Shea, Thomas J. ; Okorodudu, Anthony O. ; Ju, Hyunsu</creatorcontrib><description>Glycosylated hemoglobin evaluation is very important for assessing the control of diabetes. Since the use of point-of-care (POC) devices for monitoring HbA1c is increasing, it is important to determine how these devices compare in relation to instrumentation used in the central laboratory (CL).
Eighty-eight randomly selected samples previously analyzed using the Bio-Rad Variant™ II Hemoglobin Testing System were run on three POC Analyzers (Siemens DCA Vantage™ Analyzer, Axis-Shield Afinion™ AS100 Analyzer, and Bio-Rad In2it™ Analyzer).
All POC instruments showed good correlation to the CL method (R
2
>
0.95 for all methods). HbA1c levels obtained using Variant II (mean
=
7.9; 95% CI
=
7.5–8.3%) and In2it (mean
=
7.9; 95% C.I.
=
7.5
–8.2%) instruments were found to have no statistical mean difference (
p
=
0.21), while the values obtained using DCA Vantage (mean
=
7.2% C.I.
=
6.9
–7.5%) and Afinion (mean
=
7.3% C.I.
=
7.0
–7.6%) instruments were different (
p
<
0.001) from those of the CL method. The Afinion and DCA Vantage instruments increasingly underestimated the HbA1c compared to the CL as the HbA1c values increased. These differences were even more striking when the estimated average glucose is calculated.
Despite significant variation of results among the POC instruments evaluated relative to the CL method and pending resolution of HbA1c standardization issues, we conclude that all of the POC instruments can be used for HbA1c determination if clinicians are given instrument specific reference ranges.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-8981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-3492</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2010.09.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20832393</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Analysis of Variance ; Blood Chemical Analysis - instrumentation ; Blood Chemical Analysis - methods ; Blood Chemical Analysis - standards ; Glycated Hemoglobin A - analysis ; HbA1c ; Hemoglobin A1c ; Humans ; Laboratories - standards ; POCT ; Point-of-Care Systems ; Point-of-care testing ; Reference Standards ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>Clinica chimica acta, 2010-12, Vol.411 (23), p.2062-2066</ispartof><rights>2010 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-b5e48af0120dfde632eb15112a4d6ba9123367717bb780bd8963731b10c229d53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-b5e48af0120dfde632eb15112a4d6ba9123367717bb780bd8963731b10c229d53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2010.09.004$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20832393$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Petersen, John R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Omoruyi, Felix O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohammad, Amin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shea, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okorodudu, Anthony O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ju, Hyunsu</creatorcontrib><title>Hemoglobin A1c: Assessment of three POC analyzers relative to a central laboratory method</title><title>Clinica chimica acta</title><addtitle>Clin Chim Acta</addtitle><description>Glycosylated hemoglobin evaluation is very important for assessing the control of diabetes. Since the use of point-of-care (POC) devices for monitoring HbA1c is increasing, it is important to determine how these devices compare in relation to instrumentation used in the central laboratory (CL).
Eighty-eight randomly selected samples previously analyzed using the Bio-Rad Variant™ II Hemoglobin Testing System were run on three POC Analyzers (Siemens DCA Vantage™ Analyzer, Axis-Shield Afinion™ AS100 Analyzer, and Bio-Rad In2it™ Analyzer).
All POC instruments showed good correlation to the CL method (R
2
>
0.95 for all methods). HbA1c levels obtained using Variant II (mean
=
7.9; 95% CI
=
7.5–8.3%) and In2it (mean
=
7.9; 95% C.I.
=
7.5
–8.2%) instruments were found to have no statistical mean difference (
p
=
0.21), while the values obtained using DCA Vantage (mean
=
7.2% C.I.
=
6.9
–7.5%) and Afinion (mean
=
7.3% C.I.
=
7.0
–7.6%) instruments were different (
p
<
0.001) from those of the CL method. The Afinion and DCA Vantage instruments increasingly underestimated the HbA1c compared to the CL as the HbA1c values increased. These differences were even more striking when the estimated average glucose is calculated.
Despite significant variation of results among the POC instruments evaluated relative to the CL method and pending resolution of HbA1c standardization issues, we conclude that all of the POC instruments can be used for HbA1c determination if clinicians are given instrument specific reference ranges.</description><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Blood Chemical Analysis - instrumentation</subject><subject>Blood Chemical Analysis - methods</subject><subject>Blood Chemical Analysis - standards</subject><subject>Glycated Hemoglobin A - analysis</subject><subject>HbA1c</subject><subject>Hemoglobin A1c</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laboratories - standards</subject><subject>POCT</subject><subject>Point-of-Care Systems</subject><subject>Point-of-care testing</subject><subject>Reference Standards</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>0009-8981</issn><issn>1873-3492</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtuFDEQRS0EIpPAB7BB3rHqocrul8lqNAokUqSwgAUry49q0qPudrA9kSZfj6NJssyqdKVzr1SHsU8IawRsv-7Wzpm1gJJBrQHqN2yFfScrWSvxlq0AQFW96vGEnaa0K7GGFt-zEwG9FFLJFftzSXP4OwU7LnyD7hvfpEQpzbRkHgaebyMR_3mz5WYx0-GBYuKRJpPHe-I5cMNdIaOZ-GRsiCaHeOAz5dvgP7B3g5kSfXy6Z-z394tf28vq-ubH1XZzXTnZiFzZhureDIAC_OCplYIsNojC1L61RqGQsu067KzterC-V63sJFoEJ4TyjTxjX467dzH821PKeh6To2kyC4V90l3T1a2QIAuJR9LFkFKkQd_FcTbxoBH0o1C900WofhSqQemiq3Q-P63v7Uz-pfFssADnR4DKj_cjRZ3cSIsjP0ZyWfswvjL_H_uPhOc</recordid><startdate>20101214</startdate><enddate>20101214</enddate><creator>Petersen, John R.</creator><creator>Omoruyi, Felix O.</creator><creator>Mohammad, Amin A.</creator><creator>Shea, Thomas J.</creator><creator>Okorodudu, Anthony O.</creator><creator>Ju, Hyunsu</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20101214</creationdate><title>Hemoglobin A1c: Assessment of three POC analyzers relative to a central laboratory method</title><author>Petersen, John R. ; Omoruyi, Felix O. ; Mohammad, Amin A. ; Shea, Thomas J. ; Okorodudu, Anthony O. ; Ju, Hyunsu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c352t-b5e48af0120dfde632eb15112a4d6ba9123367717bb780bd8963731b10c229d53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Blood Chemical Analysis - instrumentation</topic><topic>Blood Chemical Analysis - methods</topic><topic>Blood Chemical Analysis - standards</topic><topic>Glycated Hemoglobin A - analysis</topic><topic>HbA1c</topic><topic>Hemoglobin A1c</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laboratories - standards</topic><topic>POCT</topic><topic>Point-of-Care Systems</topic><topic>Point-of-care testing</topic><topic>Reference Standards</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Petersen, John R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Omoruyi, Felix O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohammad, Amin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shea, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okorodudu, Anthony O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ju, Hyunsu</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinica chimica acta</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Petersen, John R.</au><au>Omoruyi, Felix O.</au><au>Mohammad, Amin A.</au><au>Shea, Thomas J.</au><au>Okorodudu, Anthony O.</au><au>Ju, Hyunsu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Hemoglobin A1c: Assessment of three POC analyzers relative to a central laboratory method</atitle><jtitle>Clinica chimica acta</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Chim Acta</addtitle><date>2010-12-14</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>411</volume><issue>23</issue><spage>2062</spage><epage>2066</epage><pages>2062-2066</pages><issn>0009-8981</issn><eissn>1873-3492</eissn><abstract>Glycosylated hemoglobin evaluation is very important for assessing the control of diabetes. Since the use of point-of-care (POC) devices for monitoring HbA1c is increasing, it is important to determine how these devices compare in relation to instrumentation used in the central laboratory (CL).
Eighty-eight randomly selected samples previously analyzed using the Bio-Rad Variant™ II Hemoglobin Testing System were run on three POC Analyzers (Siemens DCA Vantage™ Analyzer, Axis-Shield Afinion™ AS100 Analyzer, and Bio-Rad In2it™ Analyzer).
All POC instruments showed good correlation to the CL method (R
2
>
0.95 for all methods). HbA1c levels obtained using Variant II (mean
=
7.9; 95% CI
=
7.5–8.3%) and In2it (mean
=
7.9; 95% C.I.
=
7.5
–8.2%) instruments were found to have no statistical mean difference (
p
=
0.21), while the values obtained using DCA Vantage (mean
=
7.2% C.I.
=
6.9
–7.5%) and Afinion (mean
=
7.3% C.I.
=
7.0
–7.6%) instruments were different (
p
<
0.001) from those of the CL method. The Afinion and DCA Vantage instruments increasingly underestimated the HbA1c compared to the CL as the HbA1c values increased. These differences were even more striking when the estimated average glucose is calculated.
Despite significant variation of results among the POC instruments evaluated relative to the CL method and pending resolution of HbA1c standardization issues, we conclude that all of the POC instruments can be used for HbA1c determination if clinicians are given instrument specific reference ranges.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>20832393</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cca.2010.09.004</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0009-8981 |
ispartof | Clinica chimica acta, 2010-12, Vol.411 (23), p.2062-2066 |
issn | 0009-8981 1873-3492 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_757462303 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Analysis of Variance Blood Chemical Analysis - instrumentation Blood Chemical Analysis - methods Blood Chemical Analysis - standards Glycated Hemoglobin A - analysis HbA1c Hemoglobin A1c Humans Laboratories - standards POCT Point-of-Care Systems Point-of-care testing Reference Standards Time Factors |
title | Hemoglobin A1c: Assessment of three POC analyzers relative to a central laboratory method |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T17%3A10%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Hemoglobin%20A1c:%20Assessment%20of%20three%20POC%20analyzers%20relative%20to%20a%20central%20laboratory%20method&rft.jtitle=Clinica%20chimica%20acta&rft.au=Petersen,%20John%20R.&rft.date=2010-12-14&rft.volume=411&rft.issue=23&rft.spage=2062&rft.epage=2066&rft.pages=2062-2066&rft.issn=0009-8981&rft.eissn=1873-3492&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cca.2010.09.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E757462303%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=757462303&rft_id=info:pmid/20832393&rft_els_id=S000989811000570X&rfr_iscdi=true |