Statistical methods for monitoring the relationship between the IFCC reference measurement procedure for hemoglobin A1c and the designated comparison methods in the United States, Japan, and Sweden

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)/International Diabetes Federation (IDF)/IFCC Consensus Statement on the worldwide standardization of HbA1c states that ". . . [HbA1c] results are to be reported world-wide in IFCC units . . . and derived NGSP units . . . , using the IFCC-NGSP master equation." METHODS: We describe statistical methods to evaluate and monitor the relationships as expressed in master equations (MEs) between the IFCC Reference Measurement procedure (IFCC-RM) and designated comparison methods (DCMs) [US National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP), Japanese Diabetes Society/Japanese Society for Clinical Chemistry (JDS/JSCC), and Mono-S in Sweden]. We applied these statistics, including uncertainty calculations, to 12 studies in which networks of reference laboratories participated, operating the IFCC-RM and DCMs. RESULTS: For NGSP and Mono-S, slope, intercept, and derived percentage HbA1c at the therapeutic target show compliance with the respective MEs in all 12 studies. For JDS/JSCC, a slight deviation is seen in slope and derived percentage HbA1c in 2 of the 12 studies. Using the MEs, the uncertainty in an assigned value increases from 0.42 mmol/mol HbA1c (IFCC-RM) to 0.47 (NGSP), 0.49 (JDS/JSCC), and 0.51 (Mono-S). CONCLUSIONS: We describe sound statistical methods for the investigation of relations between networks of reference laboratories. Application of these statistical methods to the relationship between the IFCC-RM and DCMs in the US, Japan, and Sweden shows that they are suitable for the purpose, and the results support the applicability of the ADA/EASD/IDF/IFCC Consensus Statement on HbA1c measurement. © 2008 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.