Aims/HypothesisDisparities in HbA1c levels have been observed among ethnic groups. Most studies were performed in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), which may interfere with results due to the high variability of glucose levels. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of ethnicity on HbA1c levels in individuals without DM.MethodsThis is a systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to September 2016. Studies published after 1996, performed in adults without DM, reporting HbA1c results measured by certified/standardized methods were included. A random effects model was used and the effect size was presented as weighted HbA1c mean difference (95% CI) between different ethnicities as compared to White ethnicity.ResultsTwelve studies met the inclusion criteria, totalling data from 49,238 individuals. There were significant differences between HbA1c levels in Blacks [0.26% (2.8 mmol/mol); 95% CI 0.18 to 0.33 (2.0 to 3.6), p <0.001; I2 = 90%, p <0.001], Asians [0.24% (2.6 mmol/mol); 95% CI 0.16 to 0.33 (1.7 to 3.6), p <0.001; I2 = 80%, p = 0.0006] and Latinos [0.08% (0.9 mmol/mol); IC 95% 0.06 to 0.10 (0.7 to 1.1); p <0.001; I2 = 0%; p = 0.72] when compared to Whites.Conclusions/InterpretationThis meta-analysis shows that, in individuals without DM, HbA1c values are higher in Blacks, Asians, and Latinos when compared to White persons. Although small, these differences might have impact on the use of a sole HbA1c point to diagnose DM in all ethnic populations.

AimsGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a prevalent and potentially serious condition which may put both mothers and neonates at risk. The current recommendation for diagnosis is the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). This study aimed to determine the usefulness of HbA1c test as a diagnostic tool for GDM as compared to the traditional criteria based on the OGTT.MethodsThis was a diagnostic test accuracy study. We performed OGTT and HbA1c test in women attending prenatal visits at a tertiary hospital. GDM was defined according to WHO1999 or ADA/WHO 2013 criteria. ROC curve was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of HbA1c. Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios for different HbA1c cut-off points were calculated.ResultsOf the 262 women in the third trimester of gestation enrolled in the study, 86 (33%) were diagnosed with GDM. Only five of these women presented HbA1c ≥48 mmol/mol (6.5%). This cut-off point presented 100% specificity but very low sensitivity (7%). Based on ROC curve, and considering OGTT as the reference criterion, HbA1c ≥40 mmol/mol (5.8%) showed adequate specificity in diagnosing GDM (94.9%) but low sensitivity (26.4%). Unlike, HbA1c values of 31 mmol/mol (5.0%) presented adequate sensitivity (89.7%) but low specificity (32.6%) to detect GDM. For women with HbA1c ≥40 mmol/mol (5.8%), the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 5.14 (95%CI 2.49–10.63) and 0.78 (0.68–0.88), respectively. The post-test probability of GDM was about 40%, representing a 4.0-fold increase in the mean pre-test probability. This cut-off point could eliminate the need for the unpleasant and laborious OGTT tests in almost one third of cases, as 38% of patients with GDM may be diagnosable by HbA1c test alone.ConclusionsOur results show that combined HbA1c and OGTT measurements may be useful in diagnosing GDM.

No abstract

HbA(1c) ≥ 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) showed limited sensitivity to diabetes diagnosis, although with high specificity. The results suggest that this cut-off point would not be enough to diagnose diabetes. Its use as the sole diabetes diagnostic test should be interpreted with caution to assure the correct classification of diabetic individuals.

IntroductionStudies have revealed that glycated albumin (GA) is a useful alternative to HbA1c under conditions wherein the latter does not reflect glycaemic status accurately. Until now, there are few studies with non-Asians subjects that report on the validity of GA test in diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of GA in diagnosis of DM.Materials and methodsThis diagnostic test accuracy study was performed in 242 Brazilian individuals referred for OGTT in a tertiary university hospital. ROC curves were used to access the performance of GA and HbA1c in the diagnosis of DM by oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).ResultsOGTT, HbA1c and GA were performed in all 242 participants (40.5% male, age 54.4 ± 13.0 years [mean ± SD], body mass index 28.9 ± 6.3 kg/m2). DM by OGTT was detected in 31.8% of individuals. The equilibrium threshold value of GA ≥14.8% showed sensitivity of 64.9% and specificity of 65.5% for the diagnosis of DM. The AUC for GA [0.703 (95% CI 0.631–0.775)] was lower than for HbA1c [0.802 (95% CI 0.740–0.864)], p = 0.028. A GA value of 16.8% had similar accuracy for detecting DM as defined by HbA1c ≥6.5% (48 mmol/mol) with sensitivity of 31.2% and specificity of 93.3% for both tests. However, GA detects different subjects from those detected by HbA1c and OGTT.ConclusionsGA detected different individuals with DM from those detected by HbA1c, though it showed overall diagnostic accuracy similar to HbA1c in the diagnosis of DM. Therefore, GA should be used as an additional test rather than an alternative to HbA1c or OGTT and its use as the sole DM diagnostic test should be interpreted with caution.