Browse the corpus

Hemoglobin A The discovery that HbA1c was a valid and reliable measure of average glucose exposure was one of the most important advances in diabetes care. HbA1c was rapidly adopted for monitoring glucose control and is now recommended for the diagnosis of diabetes. HbA1c has several advantages over glucose. Glucose assessment requires fasting, has poor preanalytic stability, and is not standardized; concentrations are acutely altered by a number of factors; and measurement can vary depending on sample type (e.g., plasma or whole blood) and source (e.g., capillary, venous, interstitial). HbA1c does not require fasting, reflects chronic exposure to glucose over the past 2-3 months, and has low within-person variability, and assays are well standardized. One reason HbA1c is widely accepted as a prognostic and diagnostic biomarker is that epidemiologic studies have demonstrated robust links between HbA1c and complications, with stronger associations than those observed for usual measures of glucose. Clinical trials have also demonstrated that lowering HbA1c slows or prevents the development of microvascular disease. As with all laboratory tests, there are some clinical situations in which HbA1c is unreliable (e.g., certain hemoglobin variants, alterations in red blood cell turnover). Recent studies demonstrate that fructosamine and glycated albumin may be substituted as measures of hyperglycemia in these settings. Other approaches to monitoring glucose have recently been introduced, including continuous glucose monitoring, although this technology relies on interstitial glucose and epidemiologic evidence supporting its routine use has not yet been established for most clinical settings. In summary, a large body of epidemiologic evidence has convincingly established HbA1c as a cornerstone of modern diabetes care.

Hemoglobin A OBJECTIVE: In cystic fibrosis (CF), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is thought to underestimate glycemia. However, few studies have directly assessed the relationship between HbA1c and average glucose in CF. We determined the relationships among glycemic markers-HbA1c, fructosamine (FA), glycated albumin (%GA), and 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG)-and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in CF, hypothesizing that alternate markers would better predict average sensor glucose (ASG) than HbA1c. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CF participants and a group of healthy control subjects (HCs), ages 6-25 years, wore CGM for up to 7 days. Pearson correlations assessed the relationships between CGM variables and HbA1c, FA, %GA, and 1,5-AG. The regression line between HbA1c and ASG was compared in CF versus HC. Linear regressions determined whether alternate markers predicted ASG after adjustment for HbA1c. RESULTS: CF (n = 93) and HC (n = 29) groups wore CGM for 5.2 ± 1 days. CF participants were 14 ± 3 years of age and 47% were male, with a BMI z score -0.1 ± 0.8 and no different from HCs in age, sex, or BMI. Mean HbA1c in CF was 5.7 ± 0.8% (39 ± 9 mmol/mol) vs. HC 5.1 ± 0.2% (32 ± 2 mmol/mol) (P < 0.0001). All glycemic markers correlated with ASG (P ≤ 0.01): HbA1c (r = 0.86), FA (r = 0.69), %GA (r = 0.83), and 1,5-AG (r = -0.26). The regression line between ASG and HbA1c did not differ in CF versus HC (P = 0.44). After adjustment for HbA1c, %GA continued to predict ASG (P = 0.0009) in CF. CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c does not underestimate ASG in CF as previously assumed. No alternate glycemic marker correlated more strongly with ASG than HbA1c. %GA shows strong correlation with ASG and added to the prediction of ASG beyond HbA1c. However, we are not advocating use of HbA1c for diabetes screening in CF based on these results. Further study will determine whether glycemic measures other than ASG differ among different types of diabetes for a given HbA1c.

Hemoglobin A OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the relationship of variability in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) over years with subsequent depressive symptoms. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects (n = 837) were participants of the Israel Diabetes and Cognitive Decline (IDCD) study, which aimed to examine the relationship of characteristics of long-term type 2 diabetes with cognitive decline. All pertain to a diabetes registry established in 1998, which contains an average of 18 HbA1c measurements per subject. The results presented here are based on the IDCD baseline examination. Symptoms of depression were assessed using the 15-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). To quantify the association between variability in glycemic control (measured as the SD of HbA1c measurements [HbA1c-SD]) since 1998 with the number of depression symptoms at IDCD baseline, incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated via negative binomial regression modeling and used to account for the overdispersion in GDS scores. RESULTS: Subjects' ages averaged 72.74 years (SD 4.63 years), and the mean number of years in the diabetes registry was 8.7 (SD 2.64 years). The mean GDS score was 2.16 (SD 2.26); 10% of subjects had a GDS score ≥6, the cutoff for clinically significant depression. Mean HbA1c significantly correlated with HbA1c-SD (r = 0.6625; P < 0.0001). The SD, but not the mean, of HbA1c measurements was significantly associated with the number of subsequent depressive symptoms. For each additional 1% increase in HbA1c-SD, the number of depressive symptoms increased by a factor of 1.31 (IRR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.03-1.67]; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Variability in glycemic control is associated with more depressive symptoms.

Hemoglobin A OBJECTIVE: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level has been associated with increased mortality in middle-aged populations. The optimal intensity of glucose control in older adults with diabetes remains uncertain. We sought to estimate the risk of mortality by HbA1c levels among older adults with and without diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed data from adults aged ≥65 years (n = 7,333) from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) (1998-1994) and Continuous NHANES (1999-2004) and their linked mortality data (through December 2011). Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the relationship of HbA1c with the risk of all-cause and cause-specific (cardiovascular disease [CVD], cancer, and non-CVD/noncancer) mortality, separately for adults with diabetes and without diabetes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 8.9 years, 4,729 participants died (1,262 from CVD, 850 from cancer, and 2,617 from non-CVD/noncancer causes). Compared with those with diagnosed diabetes and an HbA1c <6.5%, the hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was significantly greater for adults with diabetes with an HbA1c >8.0%. HRs were 1.6 (95% CI 1.02, 2.6) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.3, 2.6) for HbA1c 8.0-8.9% and ≥9.0%, respectively (P for trend <0.001). Participants with undiagnosed diabetes and HbA1c >6.5% had a 1.3 (95% CI 1.03, 1.8) times greater risk of all-cause mortality compared with participants without diabetes and HbA1c 5.0-5.6%. CONCLUSIONS: An HbA1c >8.0% was associated with increased risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in older adults with diabetes. Our results support the idea that better glycemic control is important for reducing mortality; however, in light of the conflicting evidence base, there is also a need for individualized glycemic targets for older adults with diabetes depending on their demographics, duration of diabetes, and existing comorbidities.