The utility of HbA1c as a diagnostic criterion of diabetes

11Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was adopted as a new standard criterion for diagnosing diabetes. We investigated the diagnostic utility of HbA1c by comparing the 2003 American Diabetes Association (ADA) diagnostic criteria of diabetes with HbA1c of 6.5%. Furthermore, the cut-off value for HbA1c was investigated using receiver operating characteristic curves. Methods: This study included 224 subjects without a history of diabetes that had a fasting plasma glucose level of above 100 mg/dL. The subjects had undergone a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test, and diabetes was defined as according to 2003 ADA criteria. Results: The prevalence of newly diagnosed diabetes was 58.2% by the 2003 ADA criteria, and 47.8% by HbA1c of 6.5%, which underestimated the prevalence of diabetes. Compared with the 2003 ADA criteria, the sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c of 6.5% were 73.5% and 89.1%, respectively. The kappa index of agreement between 2003 ADA and HbA1c criteria was 0.60. The cut-off point of HbA1c for diagnosing diabetes was 6.45% (sensitivity, 73.3%; specificity, 88.2%; area under the curve, 0.85). HbA1c was significantly associated with fasting glucose (r = 0.82, P < 0.01), postprandial glucose (r = 0.78, P < 0.01), and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (r = 0.16, P < 0.05). Conclusion: For high risk patients whose fasting glucose was more than 100 mg/dL, HbA1c criterion underestimated the prevalence of newly diagnosed diabetes compared to the 2003 ADA criteria, and showed moderate agreement. The cutoff value for HbA1c was 6.45%, which was similar to the recommended diagnostic criterion of HbA1c by the 2009 ADA. © 2011 The Korean Academy of Family Medicine.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, H. J., Choi, E. Y., Park, E. W., Cheong, Y. S., Lee, H. Y., & Kim, J. H. (2011). The utility of HbA1c as a diagnostic criterion of diabetes. Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 32(7), 383–389. https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.2011.32.7.383

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free