» Articles » PMID: 27597979

Comparison of the Current Diagnostic Criterion of HbA1c with Fasting and 2-Hour Plasma Glucose Concentration

Overview
Journal J Diabetes Res
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Endocrinology
Date 2016 Sep 7
PMID 27597979
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To determine the effectiveness of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 6.5% in diagnosing diabetes compared to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥ 126 mg/dL and 2-hour plasma glucose (2hPG) ≥ 200 mg/dL in a previously undiagnosed diabetic cohort, we included 5,764 adult subjects without established diabetes for whom HbA1c, FPG, 2hPG, and BMI measurements were collected. Compared to the FPG criterion, the sensitivity of HbA1c ≥ 6.5% was only 43.3% (106 subjects). Compared to the 2hPG criterion, the sensitivity of HbA1c ≥ 6.5% was only 28.1% (110 subjects). Patients who were diabetic using 2hPG criterion but had HbA1c < 6.5% were more likely to be older (64 ± 15 versus 60 ± 15 years old, P = 0.01, mean ± STD), female (53.2% versus 38.2%, P = 0.008), leaner (29.7 ± 6.1 versus 33.0 ± 6.6 kg/m(2), P = 0.000005), and less likely to be current smokers (18.1% versus 29.1%, P = 0.02) as compared to those with HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. The diagnostic agreement in the clinical setting revealed the current HbA1c ≥ 6.5% is less likely to detect diabetes than those defined by FPG and 2hPG. HbA1c ≥ 6.5% detects less than 50% of diabetic patients defined by FPG and less than 30% of diabetic patients defined by 2hPG. When the diagnosis of diabetes is in doubt by HbA1c, FPG and/or 2hPG should be obtained.

Citing Articles

Discrepancy in diagnoses of diabetes and prediabetes using fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin and the underdiagnosis by ICD-10 coding: data from a tertiary hospital in Thailand.

Poorirerngpoom N, Ganokroj P, Vorayingyong A, Rattananupong T, Pusavat J, Supasiri T Front Public Health. 2024; 11:1322480.

PMID: 38192568 PMC: 10773892. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1322480.


Different Trajectories for Diabetes Mellitus Onset and Recovery According to the Centralized Aerobic-Anaerobic Energy Balance Compensation Theory.

Vetcher A, Zhukov K, Gasparyan B, Borovikov P, Karamian A, Rejepov D Biomedicines. 2023; 11(8).

PMID: 37626644 PMC: 10452142. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11082147.


Reproducibility of Glycemic Measures Among Dysglycemic Youth and Adults in the RISE Study.

Tjaden A, Edelstein S, Arslanian S, Barengolts E, Caprio S, Cree-Green M J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023; 108(10):e1125-e1133.

PMID: 36938582 PMC: 10505524. DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgad135.


Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for diabetes diagnosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Duong K, Tan C, Rattanasiri S, Thakkinstian A, Anothaisintawee T, Chaiyakunapruk N Front Med (Lausanne). 2023; 10:1016381.

PMID: 36760402 PMC: 9902703. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1016381.


Insulin Resistance and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Ultimatum to Renal Physiology.

Sinha S, Haque M Cureus. 2022; 14(9):e28944.

PMID: 36111327 PMC: 9462660. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28944.


References
1.
. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2013; 37 Suppl 1:S81-90. DOI: 10.2337/dc14-S081. View

2.
Marini M, Succurro E, Arturi F, Ruffo M, Andreozzi F, Sciacqua A . Comparison of A1C, fasting and 2-h post-load plasma glucose criteria to diagnose diabetes in Italian Caucasians. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2011; 22(7):561-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.numecd.2011.04.009. View

3.
Lu Z, Walker K, ODea K, Sikaris K, Shaw J . A1C for screening and diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33(4):817-9. PMC: 2845033. DOI: 10.2337/dc09-1763. View

4.
Alberti K, Zimmet P . Global burden of disease--where does diabetes mellitus fit in?. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2013; 9(5):258-60. DOI: 10.1038/nrendo.2013.54. View

5.
Selvin E, Crainiceanu C, Brancati F, Coresh J . Short-term variability in measures of glycemia and implications for the classification of diabetes. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167(14):1545-51. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.167.14.1545. View