Cargando…

Assessment of a glycated hemoglobin point-of-care analyzer (A1CNow+) in comparison with an immunoturbidimetric method: a diagnostic accuracy study: Avaliação de um aparelho de diagnóstico local para hemoglobina glicada (A1CNow+) comparado com um método imunoturbidimétrico: estudo de acurácia de teste diagnóstico

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: To monitor glycemic control in diabetic patients, regular measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is recommended, but this can be difficult in remote places without access to laboratories. Portable point-of-care testing devices can prove a useful alternative. Our study aime...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Affret, Aurélie, Griz, Luiz Henrique Maciel, Cesse, Eduarda Ângela Pessoa, Specht, Yuri da Silva, de Carvalho, Eduardo Maia Freese, Fontbonne, Annick
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10496565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25885487
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2013.9110911
Descripción
Sumario:CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: To monitor glycemic control in diabetic patients, regular measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is recommended, but this can be difficult in remote places without access to laboratories. Portable point-of-care testing devices can prove a useful alternative. Our study aimed to assess the performance of one of them: A1CNow+, from Bayer. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional accuracy study conducted at a university hospital in Brazil. METHODS: We made three successive measurements of capillary HbA1c using the A1CNow+ in 55 diabetic volunteers, while the same measurement was made on venous blood using the hospital reference method (Vitros 5,1 FS). We used the Bland-Altman graphical method to assess the A1CNow+ in relation to the Vitros 5,1 FS method. We also evaluated clinical usefulness by calculating the sensitivity and specificity of A1CNow+ for detecting patients with HbA1c lower than 7%, which is the usual limit for good glycemic control. RESULTS: The coefficient of variation between repeat testing for the A1CNow+ was 3.6%. The mean difference between A1CNow+ and Vitros 5,1 FS was +0.67% (95% confidence interval, CI: +0.52 to +0.81). The agreement limits of our Bland-Altman graph were -0.45 (95% CI: -0.71 to -0.19) and +1.82 (95% CI: +1.52 to +2.05). The sensitivity and specificity in relation to the 7% limit were respectively 100% and 67.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the A1CNow+ had good sensitivity, its accuracy was insufficient for use as a replacement for laboratory measurements of HbA1c, for glycemic control monitoring in diabetic patients.