Weykamp C. Ann Lab Med. 2013 Nov;33(6):393-400. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2013.33.6.393

Background: The IFCC Reference Measurement System for hemoglobin (Hb)A_1c (IFCC-RM) has been developed within the framework of metrologic traceability and is embedded in a network of 14 reference laboratories. This paper describes the outcome of 12 intercomparison studies (periodic evaluations to control essential elements of the IFCC-RM).

The attraction of the simple biochemical concept combined with a clinical requirement for a long-term marker of glycolic control in diabetes has made hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) one of the most important assays undertaken in the medical laboratory. The diversity in the biochemistry of glycation, clinical requirements, and management demands has resulted in a broad range of methods being developed since HbA1c was described in the late 1960s. A range of analytic principles are used for the measurement of HbA1c. The charge difference between hemoglobin A0 and HbA1c has been widely utilized to separate these two fractions, most notably found these days in ion-exchange high-performance liquid chromatography systems; the difference in molecular structure (affinity chromatography and immunochemical methods) are becoming widely available. Different results found in different laboratories using a variety of HbA1c analyses resulted in the need for standardization, most notably in the United States, Japan, and Sweden. Designated comparison methods are now located in these three countries, but as they are arbitrarily chosen and have differences in specificity, results of these methods and the reference values and action limits of the methods differ and only harmonized HbA1c in specific geographic areas. A reference measurement system within the concept of metrological traceability is now globally accepted as the only valid analytic anchor. However, there is still discussion over the units to be reported. The consensus statement of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), the American Diabetes Association, the International Diabetes Federation, and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes suggests reporting HbA1c in IFCC units (mmol/mol), National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program units (%), and estimated average glucose (either in mg/dl or mmol/liter). The implementation of this consensus statement raised new questions, to be answered in a concerted action of clinicians, biochemists, external quality assessment organizers, patient groups, and manufacturers.

Non-equivalence in serum creatinine (SCr) measurements across Dutch laboratories and the consequences hereof on chronic kidney disease (CKD) staging were examined.

BACKGROUND: A major objective of the IFCC Task Force on Implementation of HbA1c Standardization is to develop a model to define quality targets for glycated hemoglobin (Hb A1c). METHODS: Two generic models, biological variation and sigma-metrics, are investigated. We selected variables in the models for Hb A1c and used data of external quality assurance/proficiency testing programs to evaluate the suitability of the models to set and evaluate quality targets within and between laboratories. RESULTS: In the biological variation model, 48% of individual laboratories and none of the 26 instrument groups met the minimum performance criterion. In the sigma-metrics model, with a total allowable error (TAE) set at 5 mmol/mol (0.46% NGSP), 77% of the individual laboratories and 12 of 26 instrument groups met the 2σ criterion. CONCLUSIONS: The biological variation and sigma-metrics models were demonstrated to be suitable for setting and evaluating quality targets within and between laboratories. The sigma-metrics model is more flexible, as both the TAE and the risk of failure can be adjusted to the situation—for example, requirements related to diagnosis/monitoring or international authorities. With the aim of reaching (inter)national consensus on advice regarding quality targets for Hb A1c, the Task Force suggests the sigma-metrics model as the model of choice, with default values of 5 mmol/mol (0.46%) for TAE and risk levels of 2σ and 4σ for routine laboratories and laboratories performing clinical trials, respectively. These goals should serve as a starting point for discussion with international stakeholders in the field of diabetes.