Introduction: Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is widely used in the management of diabetes. Therefore, the reliability and comparability among different analytical methods for its detection have become very important. Materials and methods: A comparative evaluation of the analytical performances (precision, linearity, accuracy, method comparison, and interferences including bilirubin, triglyceride, cholesterol, labile HbA1c (LA1c), vitamin C, aspirin, fetal haemoglobin (HbF), and haemoglobin E (Hb E)) were performed on Capillarys 2 Flex Piercing (Capillarys 2FP) (Sebia, France), Tosoh HLC-723 G8 (Tosoh G8) (Tosoh, Japan), Premier Hb9210 (Trinity Biotech, Ireland) and Roche Cobas c501 (Roche c501) (Roche Diagnostics, Germany). Results: A good precision was shown at both low and high HbA1c levels on all four systems, with all individual CVs below 2% (IFCC units) or 1.5% (NGSP units). Linearity analysis for each analyzer had achieved a good correlation coefficient (R2 > 0.99) over the entire range tested. The analytical bias of the four systems against the IFCC targets was less than ± 6% (NGSP units), indicating a good accuracy. Method comparison showed a great correlation and agreement between methods. Very high levels of triglycerides and cholesterol (≥ 15.28 and ≥ 8.72 mmol/L, respectively) led to falsely low HbA1c concentrations on Roche c501. Elevated HbF induced false HbA1c detection on Capillarys 2FP (> 10%), Tosoh G8 (> 30%), Premier Hb9210 (> 15%), and Roche c501 (> 5%). On Tosoh G8, HbE induced an extra peak on chromatogram, and significantly lower results were reported. Conclusions: The four HbA1c methods commonly used with commercial analyzers showed a good reliability and comparability, although some interference may falsely alter the result.
Wu, X., Chao, Y., Wan, Z., Wang, Y., Ma, Y., Ke, P., … Huang, X. (2016). A comparative evaluation of the analytical performances of Capillarys 2 flex piercing, tosoh HLC-723 G8, premier Hb9210, and roche cobas c501 tina-quant gen 2 analyzers for HbA1c determination. Biochemia Medica, 26(3), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.039