COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Glycated albumin but not HbA1c reflects glycaemic control in patients with neonatal diabetes mellitus.
Diabetologia 2011 September
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: It is difficult to use HbA(1c) as an indicator of glycaemic control in patients with neonatal diabetes mellitus (NDM) because of high levels of fetal haemoglobin (HbF) remaining in the blood. In this study, glycated albumin (GA), which is not affected by HbF, and HbA(1c) were compared to evaluate whether they reflect glycaemic control in patients with NDM.
METHODS: This study included five patients with NDM. Age at diagnosis was 38 ± 20 days. Insulin therapy was started in all patients, and levels of GA, HbA(1c) and HbF were measured monthly for 6 months. One-month average preprandial plasma glucose (aPPG) was calculated using self-monitoring of blood glucose.
RESULTS: Plasma glucose and GA were elevated (29.7 ± 13.1 mmol/l [n = 5] and 33.3 ± 6.9% [n = 3], respectively) but HbA(1c) was within normal limits (5.4 ± 2.6% [35.5 ± 4.9 mmol/mol]; n = 4) at diagnosis. With diabetes treatment, aPPG (r = -0.565, p = 0.002), GA (r = -0.552, p = 0.003) and HbF (r = -0.855, p < 0.0001) decreased with age, whereas HbA(1c) increased (r = 0.449, p = 0.004). GA was strongly positively correlated with aPPG (r = 0.784, p < 0.0001), while HbA(1c) showed no correlation with aPPG (r = 0.221, p = 0.257) and was significantly inversely correlated with HbF (r = -0.539, p = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: GA is a useful indicator of glycaemic control in patients with NDM, whereas HbA(1c) is influenced by age-related changes in HbF and does not accurately reflect glycaemic control.
METHODS: This study included five patients with NDM. Age at diagnosis was 38 ± 20 days. Insulin therapy was started in all patients, and levels of GA, HbA(1c) and HbF were measured monthly for 6 months. One-month average preprandial plasma glucose (aPPG) was calculated using self-monitoring of blood glucose.
RESULTS: Plasma glucose and GA were elevated (29.7 ± 13.1 mmol/l [n = 5] and 33.3 ± 6.9% [n = 3], respectively) but HbA(1c) was within normal limits (5.4 ± 2.6% [35.5 ± 4.9 mmol/mol]; n = 4) at diagnosis. With diabetes treatment, aPPG (r = -0.565, p = 0.002), GA (r = -0.552, p = 0.003) and HbF (r = -0.855, p < 0.0001) decreased with age, whereas HbA(1c) increased (r = 0.449, p = 0.004). GA was strongly positively correlated with aPPG (r = 0.784, p < 0.0001), while HbA(1c) showed no correlation with aPPG (r = 0.221, p = 0.257) and was significantly inversely correlated with HbF (r = -0.539, p = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: GA is a useful indicator of glycaemic control in patients with NDM, whereas HbA(1c) is influenced by age-related changes in HbF and does not accurately reflect glycaemic control.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app