Dataset Information

Impact of Glucose Measuring Systems and Sample Type on Diagnosis Rates of Diabetes Mellitus.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The use of glucose point-of-care testing (POCT) devices for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM) is an ongoing controversy. In patient management, glucose concentrations are determined by POCT and core laboratory glucose methods, and the values are commonly compared even though the samples collected are different, namely, capillary whole blood and venous plasma. In individual patients it is difficult to distinguish between factors that can influence the results, such as sample type and measuring procedure. In this study, glucose concentrations obtained using POCT and core laboratory instruments were assessed to duplicate typical scenarios experienced in healthcare. Corresponding diagnosis rates of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and DM based on fixed, method-independent cutoffs were compared.

Methods

Glucose concentration was measured by the 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in samples collected from an inpatient cohort and a cohort from the general population. Two POCT methods, namely, a handheld unit-use glucometer and a small bench-top analyzer with batch reagents, and two core laboratory procedures were used to measure glucose concentrations. The sample types were whole blood and plasma samples collected from venous and capillary blood. The glycated hemoglobin level in whole blood was also determined.

Results

A total of 231 subjects were included in the study. The 2-h OGTT glucose concentrations in the capillary whole blood samples showed a positive bias of 0.8 mmol/L compared to those obtained using core laboratory plasma glucose methods, leading to increased rates of diabetes diagnosis. This bias decreased to 0.2 mmol/L when venous blood was used in the tests. A change in the method used by the core laboratory introduced a negative bias of 0.5 mmol/L and, consequently, a lower diagnosis rates.

Discussion and conclusion

Venous blood samples measured at the point-of-care are the most suitable sample type for the measurement of the glucose concentration in the 2-h OGTT. The investigated unit-use POCT method is suitable for the diagnosis of IGT and DM when venous blood samples are collected. Importantly, changes in measurement procedures can introduce a bias and affect diagnosis rates, thereby emphasizing the need for further harmonization of glucose methods. A plain language summary is available for this article.

SUBMITTER: Blaurock MG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6167283 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study investigates the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and glycemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using flash glucose monitoring (FGM) devices within a public health system where these technologies are freely available and utilized according to recommended guidelines.MethodsA follow-up study of 1060 adults (mean age 47.4 ± 15.0 years, 49.0% women) with T1D, receiving care at three Spanish university hospitals that regularly employ the FGM system. SES was assessed using the Spanish Deprivation Index and the average annual net income per person. Glycemic data were collected over a 14-day follow-up period, including baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels prior to sensor placement, the last available HbA1c levels, and FGM-derived glucose metrics. Individuals with sensor usage time < 70% were excluded. Chronic micro and macrovascular complications related to diabetes were documented. Regression models, adjusted for clinical variables, were employed to determine the impact of SES on optimal sensor control (defined as time in range (TIR) ≥ 70% with time below range < 4%) and disease complications.ResultsThe average follow-up was of 2 years. The mean TIR and the percentage of individuals with optimal control were higher in individuals in the highest SES quartile (64.9% ± 17.8% and 27.9%, respectively) compared to those in the lowest SES quartile (57.8 ± 17.4% and 12.1%) (p < 0.001). Regression models showed a higher risk of suboptimal control (OR 2.27, p < 0.001) and ischemic heart disease and/or stroke (OR 3.59, p = 0.005) in the lowest SES quartile. No association was observed between SES and the risk of diabetic nephropathy and retinopathy. FGM system improved HbA1c levels across all SES quartiles. Although individuals in the highest SES quartile still achieved a significantly lower value at the end of the follow-up 55 mmol/mol (7.2%) compared to those in the lowest SES quartile 60 mmol/mol (7.6%) (p < 0.001), the significant disparities in this parameter between the various SES groups were significantly reduced after FGM technology use.ConclusionsSocioeconomic status plays a significant role in glycemic control and complications in individuals with T1D, extending beyond access to technology and its proper utilization. The free utilization of FGM technology helps alleviate the impact of social inequalities on glycemic control.

Project description:IntroductionThe diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is based on suitable cut-off values of specific biomarkers, such as the concentration of glucose in plasma. The German Diabetes Association has very recently published a clinical practice guideline on the definition, classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus that recommends measurements of plasma glucose concentration have an imprecision defined as a minimal difference (MD) of at a fasting plasma glucose concentration of 7.0 mmol/L. To obtain reliable values for the MD, we investigated long-term and short-term measurement uncertainty.MethodsThe imprecision was determined by two approaches: (1) a long-term dataset with imprecision based on the Guideline of the German Medical Association on Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratory Examinations (Rili-BAEK), in a medical laboratory operating 24/7, using internal quality control (IQC) data for four concentrations during a 10-year period; and (2) a detailed short-term dataset with imprecision assessed by hourly measurements of control materials. These datasets were used to calculate the MD cut-off (MDcut-off) as: [Formula: see text] = 2 [Formula: see text], where SD is the standard deviation and k = 2 represents a confidence level of 95%.ResultsThe MDcut-off of ≤ 0.7 mmol/L at a fasting plasma glucose concentration of 7.0 mmol/L (MDcut-off 7.0) for the long-term and the short-term approaches were 0.44 and 0.40 mmol/L, respectively. The MDcut-off 7.0 from both approaches was therefore below the recommended value of 0.7 mmol/L. It was noted that the variability in performance within and between instruments can be covered by reporting the long-term MDcut-off 7.0 across all connected instruments. In this study, stable results for the MDcut-off 7.0 were obtained after 1 year.ConclusionImprecision as measured by IQC data is remarkably stable over many years of operation. Current imprecision assessment usually focuses on only single instruments, whereas clinicians perceive the measurement as the result of the combined analytical performance of all instruments used for a certain assay. In the clinical setting, the MD may be a more useful measure of imprecision, and we suggest deriving the MDcut-off combined from all instruments and control cycles that are used in the patient care setting for a given analyte.