Clinical impact of variability in HbA1c as assessed by simultaneously measuring fructosamine and use of error grid analysis

Ann Clin Biochem 2008;45:421-425
© 2008 Association for Clinical Biochemistry

This Article

Figures Only

Full Text

Full Text (PDF)

Alert me when this article is cited

Alert me if a correction is posted

Email this article to a friend

Similar articles in this journal

Similar articles in PubMed

Alert me to new issues of the journal

Download to citation manager

Google Scholar

Articles by Macdonald, D. R

Articles by Singh, B. M

PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking

What’s this?

Original Articles

David R Macdonald1,
Alison M Hanson2,
Martin R Holland3 and
Baldev M Singh2

1 Albrighton Medical Practice, Shaw Lane, Albrighton, Wolverhampton, West Midlands WV7 3DT, UK;
2 Wolverhampton Diabetes Centre;
3 Clinical Chemistry, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, West Midlands WV10 OQP, UK

Corresponding author: Dr David R Macdonald. Email: davidmacdonald{at}

Background: Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is the only measure of glycaemic control used for many patients with diabetes, but it has limitations and might sometimes be misleading. HbA1c concentrations are influenced by conditions that alter red-cell life and there is evidence that biochemical variation in intracellular glycation rates also influence HbA1c concentrations. This paper is the first to propose a method of using simultaneously measured HbA1cand fructosamine, and error grid analysis, in the clinical setting,to gain a better understanding of glycaemic control.

Methods: Cross-sectional analytical study using HbA1c and fructosaminemeasures on the same blood sample from 1744 patients havingblood taken for hospital diabetes clinic appointments. No otherselection or exclusion criteria were applied.

Results: The fructosamine results were converted to a HbA1c equivalent which was then compared with the HbA1c. In an Altman-Bland plot, the paired result differences ranged between –6.9% and +5.5% HbA1c with 1139 (65%), 438 (25%), 130 (8%) and 37 (2%) being 1%, 1–2%, 2–3% or >3% of HbA1c difference,respectively. In clinical error grid analysis, 864 (50%) resultshad tight concordance for clinical interpretation, 761 (43%)had one block disunity of probably little clinical significance,but 105 (6%) were two blocks and 14 (1%) were three blocks discordant.

Conclusion: HbA1c may not accurately reflect glucose control. Our method,utilizing co-assessment with serum fructosamine, evaluates thepossible clinical impact of this. We suggest the analysis usedin this paper should be used routinely in diabetes practice.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What’s this?