PDF herunterladen
Diabetologie und Stoffwechsel 2011; 6(1): 32-42
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1262761
Übersicht

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart ˙ New York

Konsequenzen eines Wechsels von Glukose- zu HbA1c-basierten Kriterien für die Diabetesdiagnose: Ein narratives Review aus epidemiologischer Sicht

Consequences of a Change from Glucose to HbA1c-Based Criteria for the Diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review from an Epidemiological ViewB. Kowall1 , W. Rathmann1
  • 1Deutsches Diabetes Zentrum an der Heinrich-Heine Universität
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
11. Februar 2011 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die American Diabetes Association (ADA) empfiehlt einen HbA1c-Wert ≥ 6,5 % als alternatives Kriterium für die Diagnose des Typ-2-Diabetes (T2DM), das International Expert Committee aus Experten von ADA, EASD und IDF sieht den HbA1c sogar als glukosebasierten Kriterien überlegen an. Eine Auswertung bisher vorliegender epidemiologischer Studien zeigt, dass ein Wechsel von glukose- zu HbA1c-basierten Kriterien gravierende Folgen hätte – beispielsweise für die Diabetesprävalenz in der Bevölkerung. In den meisten Studien sinkt die Prävalenz des T2DM – teilweise deutlich – ab, wenn die Diabetesdiagnose auf dem Kriterium HbA1c ≥ 6,5 % und nicht mehr auf dem oralen Glukosetoleranztest (OGTT) beruht. Die Sensitivität des HbA1c für Diabetesfälle, die nach glukosebasierten Kriterien diagnostiziert wurden, schwankt in den bisherigen Studien zwischen 17 und 78 %, der positive prädiktive Wert zwischen 15 und 98 %: Beides zeigt eine teilweise sehr geringe Überlappung der nach Glukose- beziehungsweise HbA1c-Kriterien definierten Diabetespopulationen an. Auch die Prävalenz des Prädiabetes variiert je nach gewähltem Kriterium (WHO 1999, ADA 2003, HbA1c 5,7–6,4 %, HbA1c 6,0–6,4 %) erheblich, die Überlappung der nach unterschiedlichen Kriterien als prädiabetisch identifizierten Populationen ist in der Regel gering. Personen, die nur per OGTT eine Diabetesdiagnose erhalten haben, haben nach ersten Analysen ein etwas ungünstigeres metabolisches Profil als Personen, die nur anhand des HbA1c diagnostiziert wurden. Es fehlen Langzeitstudien, die zeigen, ob Probanden, die nach den Glukose- beziehungsweise dem neuen HbA1c-Kriterium diagnostiziert wurden, unterschiedliche Risiken für Komplikationen aufweisen. Auch die in Deutschland durchgeführte KORA-Studie zeigt, dass mit HbA1c- und mit Glukosemessungen Diabetesdiagnosen für unterschiedliche Populationen gestellt werden.

Abstract

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends HbA1c ≥ 6.5 % as an alternative criterion for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). The International Expert Committee with ADA, EASD, and IDF experts even considers HbA1c as superior to glucose-based criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes. A review of present epidemiological studies shows that switching from glucose to HbA1c criteria would have serious consequences, for instance for the prevalence of diabetes in the population. In most studies the prevalence of T2DM decreased, sometimes dramatically, with diagnosis of diabetes by HbA1c ≥ 6.5 % instead of the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). In studies published so far, the sensitivity of HbA1c for the identification of diabetes cases diagnosed with glucose-based criteria ranged from 17 to 78 %, the positive predictive value ranged from 15 to 98 %, indicating sometimes very small overlap of populations defined as diabetic by glucose or HbA1c criteria. Prevalence of prediabetes also varied considerably when different criteria (WHO 1999, ADA 2003, HbA1c 5.7–6.4 %, HbA1c 6.0–6.4 %) were used, there was little overlap of the populations with prediabetes by different criteria. Subjects having a diagnosis of diabetes only by OGTT showed a somewhat more adverse metabolic profile than subjects diagnosed only by the HbA1c criterion. There is still a lack of prospective data showing whether subjects diagnosed with diabetes by either glucose criteria or by the new HbA1c criterion have different risks of complications. The German KORA study also gave evidence that different populations are diagnosed with diabetes by applying HbA1c and glucose criteria.

Schlüsselwörter

Typ-2-Diabetes - Prädiabetes - HbA1c - oraler Glukosetoleranztest - Diabetesdiagnose

Key words

type 2 diabetes - prediabetes - glycosylated hemoglobin A - oral glucose tolerance test - diagnosis of diabetes

Literatur

  • 1 Consensus Committee . Consensus Statement on the Worldwide Standardization of the Hemoglobin A1C Measurement: the American Diabetes Association, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, and the International Diabetes Federation.  Diabetes Care. 2007;  30 2399-2400
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 American Diabetes Association . Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2010.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 11-61
    Google Scholar
  • 3 International Expert Committee . International Expert Committee Report on the Role of the A1C Assay in the Diagnosis of Diabetes.  Diabetes Care. 2009;  32 1327-1334
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinologists Board of Trustees . American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists / American College of Endocrinology Statement on the Use of Hemoglobin A1c for the Diagnosis of Diabetes.  Endocr Pract. 2010;  16 155-156
    Google Scholar
  • 5 World Health Organization .Definition and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and intermediate hyperglycaemia. Geneva: WHO; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Stellungnahme der Deutschen Diabetes Gesellschaft, diabetesDE und des Kompetenznetzes Diabetes mellitus zur Verwendung des HbAc1-Wertes als Biomarker zur Diabetesdiagnose. http://www.deutsche-diabetes-gesellschaft.de/redaktion/news/DiabetesDE_Stellungnahme_HbA1c092010.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Bloomgarden Z T. A1C: Recommendations, debates, and questions.  Diabetes Care. 2009;  32 e141-e147
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kilpatrick E, Bloomgarden Z, Zimmet P. Is haemoglobin A1c a step forward for diagnosing diabetes?.  BMJ. 2009;  339 1288-1290
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Pani L N, Korenda L, Meigs J B et al. Effect of aging on A1C levels in individuals without diabetes: evidence from the Framingham Offspring Study and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001–2004.  Diabetes Care. 2008;  31 1991-1996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Davidson M B, Schriger D L. Effect of age and race / ethnicity on HbA1c levels in people without known diabetes mellitus: implications for the diagnosis of diabetes.  Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;  87 415-421
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Herman W H, Ma Y, Uwaifo G et al. Differences in A1C by race and ethnicity among patients with impaired glucose tolerance in the Diabetes Prevention Program.  Diabetes Care. 2007;  30 2453-2457
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Snieder H, Sawtell P A, Ross L et al. HbA(1c) levels are genetically determined even in type 1 diabetes: evidence from healthy and diabetic twins.  Diabetes. 2001;  50 2858-2863
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Borg R, Vistisen D, Witte D R et al. Comparing risk profiles of individuals diagnosed with diabetes by OGTT and HbA1c.  Diabet Med. 2010;  27 906-910
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Christensen D L, Witte D R, Kaduka L et al. Moving to an a1c-based diagnosis of diabetes has a different impact on prevalence in different ethnic groups.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 580-582
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jørgensen M E, Bjerregaard P, Borch-Johnsen K et al. New diagnostic criteria for diabetes: Is the change from glucose to hba1c possible in all populations?.  J Clin Endocrin Metab. 2010;  (Epub ahead of print)
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Mostafa S A, Davies M J, Webb D et al. The potential impact of using glycated haemoglobin as the preferred diagnostic tool for detecting Type 2 diabetes mellitus.  Diabet Med. 2010;  27 762-769
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rathmann W, Kowall B, Tamayo T et al. Hemoglobin A1c and glucose criteria identify different subjects as having type 2 diabetes in middle-aged and older populations: The KORA S4 / F4 Study.  Ann Med. 2010;  (Epub ahead of print)
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Carson A P, Reynolds K, Fonseca V A et al. Comparison of A1c and Fasting Glucose Criteria to Diagnose Diabetes Among U.S. Adults.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 95-97
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lorenzo C, Haffner S M. Performance characteristics of the new definition of diabetes. The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 335-337
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Zhou X, Pang Z, Gao W et al. Performance of an A1C and fasting capillary blood glucose test for screening newly diagnosed diabetes and prediabetes defined by an oral glucose tolerance test in Quingdao, China.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 545-550
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lu Z X, Walker K Z, O’Dea K et al. A1c for screening and diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 817-819
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Van’t Riet E, Alssema M, Rijkelijkhuizen J M et al. Relationship between A1C and glucose levels in the general Dutch population. The New Hoorn Study.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 61-66
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kramer C K, Araneta M RG, Barrett-Connor E. A1C and diabetes diagnosis: The Rancho Bernardo Study.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 101-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Selvin E, Steffes M W, Gregg E et al. Performance of glycated hemoglobin for the classification and prediction of diabetes.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  (Epub ahead of print)
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Cowie C C, Rust K F, Byrd-Holt D D et al. Prevalence of diabetes and high risk for diabetes using A1C Criteria in the U.S. population in 1988–2006.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 562-568
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mann D M, Carson A P, Shimbo D et al. Impact of HbA1c screening criterion on the diagnosis of pre-diabetes among US adults.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 2190-2195
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mohan V, Vijayachandrika V, Gokulakrishnan K et al. A1C cut points to define various glucose intolerance groups in Asian indians.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 515-519
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Mannucci E, Ognibene A, Sposato I et al. Fasting plasma glucose and glycated haemoglobin in the screening of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance.  Acta Diabetol. 2003;  40 181-186
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mostafa S A, Khunti K, Srinivasan B T et al. The potential impact and optimal cut-points of using glycated haemoglobin, HbA1c, to detect people with impaired glucose regulation in a UK multi-ethnic cohort.  Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;  90 100-108
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Olson D E, Rhee M K, Herrick K et al. Screening for diabetes and prediabetes with proposed A1c-based diagnostic criteria.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 2184-2189
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lorenzo C, Wagenknecht L E, Hanley A JG et al. Hemoglobin A1c between 5.7 and 6.4 % as a marker for identifying prediabetes, insulin sensitivity and secretion, and cardiovascular risk factors: The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS).  Diabetes Care. 2010;  33 2104-2109
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Færch K, Borch-Johnsen K, Vaag A et al. Sex differences in glucose levels: a consequence of physiology or methodological convenience? The Inter99 study.  Diabetologia. 2010;  53 858-865
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Rathmann W, Strassburger K, Giani G et al. Differences in height explain gender differences in the response to the oral glucose tolerance test.  Diabet Med. 2008;  25 1374-1375
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Bao Y, Ma X, Li H et al. Glycated haemoglobin A1c for diagnosing diabetes in Chinese population: cross sectional epidemiological survey.  BMJ. 2010;  340 c2249
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rathmann W, Haastert B, Icks A et al. High prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus in Southern Germany: Target populations for efficient screening. The KORA survey 2000.  Diabetologia. 2003;  46 182-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Tuomilehto J, Lindström J, Eriksson J G Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study Group et al.,. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance.  N Engl J Med.. 2001;  344 1343-1350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Knowler W C, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler S E et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin.  N Engl J Med.. 2002;  346 393-403
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Boronat M, Saavedra P, López-Ríos L et al. Differences in cardiovascular risk profile of diabetic subjects discordantly classified by diagnostic criteria based on glycated hemoglobin and oral glucose tolerance test.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  (Epub ahead of print)
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Araneta M RG, Grandinetti A, Chang H K. A1C and diabetes diagnosis among Filipino-Americans, Japanese-Americans, and native Hawaiians.  Diabetes Care. 2010;  (Epub ahead of print)
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Selvin E, Zhu H, Brancati F L. Elevated A1c in adults without a history of diabetes in the U.S.  Diabetes Care. 2009;  32 828-833
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kumar P R, Bhansali A, Ravikiran M. Utility of glycated hemoglobin in diagnosing type 2 diabetes mellitus: a community-based study.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;  95 2832-2835
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Cowie C C, Rust K F, Ford E S et al. Full accounting of diabetes and pre-diabetes in the U.S. population in 1988–1994 and 2005–2006.  Diabetes Care. 2009;  32 287-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Jesudason D R, Dunstan K, Leong D et al. Macrovascular risk and diagnostic criteria for type 2 diabetes. Implications for the use of FPG and HbA1c for cost-effective screening.  Diabetes Care. 2003;  26 485-490
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Buell C, Kermah D, Davidson M B. Utility of A1C for diabetes screening in the 1999–2004 NHANES Population.  Diabetes Care. 2007;  30 2233-2235
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Dr. B. KowallMSc 

Deutsches Diabetes Zentrum an der Heinrich-Heine Universität

Auf’m Hennekamp 65

40225 Düsseldorf

Telefon: 02 11 / 3 38 22 76

Fax: 02 11 / 3 38 26 77

eMail: bernd.kowall@ddz.uni-duesseldorf.de