Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Glycated albumin may be a choice, but not an alternative marker of glycated hemoglobin for glycemic control assessment in diabetic patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis.
Chin Med J (Engl). 2013; 126(17):3295-300.CM

Abstract

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) underestimate the actual glycemic control levels in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients, because of anemia and the using of erythropoietin (EPO); it was recommended that glycated albumin (GA) should be an alternative marker. Therefore, the assessment performances of glycemic control were compared between GA and HbA1c in this research by referring to mean plasma glucose (MPG) in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients undergoing MHD or not.

METHODS

MPG was calculated according to the data registered at enrollment and follow-up 2 months later and corresponding HbA1c, albumin (ALB), GA, etc. were measured in 280 cases. A case-control study for comparing GA and HbA1c was done among the groups of MHD patients with DM (n=88) and without DM (NDM; n=90), and non-MHD ones with DM (n=102) using MPG for an actual glycemic control standard.

RESULTS

In these 3 groups, only for DM patients' (whether undergoing MHD or not), GA and HbA1c correlated with MPG significantly (P < 0.01). Through linear regression analysis, it could be found that the regression curves of GA almost coincided in MHD and non-MHD patients with DM, because the intercepts (2.418 vs. 2.329) and slopes (0.053 vs. 0.057) were very close to each other. On the contrary, regression curves of HbA1c did not coincide in the two groups, because variance of the slopes (0.036 vs. 0.052) were relatively large. Through comparing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) areas under the curve (AUC), it could be understood that the assessment performances of GA and HbA1c in MHD patients were lower than those in non-MHD ones, and assessment performance of HbA1c in MHD patients was better than GA (P < 0.05). In addition, the effects of Hb and EPO dose on HbA1c, or that of ALB on GA were unobvious in our study.

CONCLUSIONS

Actual glycemic control level in MHD patients with DM may be underestimated by HbA1c, and it could be avoided by GA; however, glycemic evaluating performance of HbA1c may be still better than that of GA. Therefore, HbA1c should not be replaced completely although GA can be used as a choice to monitor glycemic level.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Nephrology, First Affiliated Hospital of People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing 100048, China.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

24033952

Citation

Chen, Feng-Kun, et al. "Glycated Albumin May Be a Choice, but Not an Alternative Marker of Glycated Hemoglobin for Glycemic Control Assessment in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis." Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 126, no. 17, 2013, pp. 3295-300.
Chen FK, Sun XF, Zhang D, et al. Glycated albumin may be a choice, but not an alternative marker of glycated hemoglobin for glycemic control assessment in diabetic patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. Chin Med J. 2013;126(17):3295-300.
Chen, F. K., Sun, X. F., Zhang, D., Cui, S. Y., Chen, X. M., Wei, R. B., Lu, J. M., Li, J. J., Liu, W. H., Zhang, D. L., & Zhang, Z. M. (2013). Glycated albumin may be a choice, but not an alternative marker of glycated hemoglobin for glycemic control assessment in diabetic patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. Chinese Medical Journal, 126(17), 3295-300.
Chen FK, et al. Glycated Albumin May Be a Choice, but Not an Alternative Marker of Glycated Hemoglobin for Glycemic Control Assessment in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis. Chin Med J. 2013;126(17):3295-300. PubMed PMID: 24033952.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Glycated albumin may be a choice, but not an alternative marker of glycated hemoglobin for glycemic control assessment in diabetic patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. AU - Chen,Feng-Kun, AU - Sun,Xue-Feng, AU - Zhang,Dong, AU - Cui,Shao-Yuan, AU - Chen,Xiang-Mei, AU - Wei,Ri-Bao, AU - Lu,Ju-Ming, AU - Li,Ji-Jun, AU - Liu,Wen-Hu, AU - Zhang,Dong-Liang, AU - Zhang,Zhi-Min, PY - 2013/9/17/entrez PY - 2013/9/17/pubmed PY - 2014/4/8/medline SP - 3295 EP - 300 JF - Chinese medical journal JO - Chin. Med. J. VL - 126 IS - 17 N2 - BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) underestimate the actual glycemic control levels in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients, because of anemia and the using of erythropoietin (EPO); it was recommended that glycated albumin (GA) should be an alternative marker. Therefore, the assessment performances of glycemic control were compared between GA and HbA1c in this research by referring to mean plasma glucose (MPG) in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients undergoing MHD or not. METHODS: MPG was calculated according to the data registered at enrollment and follow-up 2 months later and corresponding HbA1c, albumin (ALB), GA, etc. were measured in 280 cases. A case-control study for comparing GA and HbA1c was done among the groups of MHD patients with DM (n=88) and without DM (NDM; n=90), and non-MHD ones with DM (n=102) using MPG for an actual glycemic control standard. RESULTS: In these 3 groups, only for DM patients' (whether undergoing MHD or not), GA and HbA1c correlated with MPG significantly (P < 0.01). Through linear regression analysis, it could be found that the regression curves of GA almost coincided in MHD and non-MHD patients with DM, because the intercepts (2.418 vs. 2.329) and slopes (0.053 vs. 0.057) were very close to each other. On the contrary, regression curves of HbA1c did not coincide in the two groups, because variance of the slopes (0.036 vs. 0.052) were relatively large. Through comparing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) areas under the curve (AUC), it could be understood that the assessment performances of GA and HbA1c in MHD patients were lower than those in non-MHD ones, and assessment performance of HbA1c in MHD patients was better than GA (P < 0.05). In addition, the effects of Hb and EPO dose on HbA1c, or that of ALB on GA were unobvious in our study. CONCLUSIONS: Actual glycemic control level in MHD patients with DM may be underestimated by HbA1c, and it could be avoided by GA; however, glycemic evaluating performance of HbA1c may be still better than that of GA. Therefore, HbA1c should not be replaced completely although GA can be used as a choice to monitor glycemic level. SN - 2542-5641 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24033952/Glycated_albumin_may_be_a_choice_but_not_an_alternative_marker_of_glycated_hemoglobin_for_glycemic_control_assessment_in_diabetic_patients_undergoing_maintenance_hemodialysis_ L2 - http://Insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=24033952 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -