Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Es ist ein Fehler in der Kommunikation mit einem externen System aufgetreten. Bitte versuchen Sie Ihre letzte Aktion erneut. Sollte der Fehler bestehen bleiben, setzen Sie sich bitte mit dem Informationszentrum der Bibliothek in Verbindung oder versuchen Sie es später erneut.
Aims
The results of using HbA
1C
-based criteria for diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes have been reported to differ from those obtained using fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). We aimed to determine whether these discrepancies might be due to the influence of the glycation gap.
Methods
For 430 patients without previously diagnosed diabetes for whom an OGTT had been requested in normal clinical practice, FPG, fructosamine and HbA
1C
were measured at the time of the test and again 1 month later. Glycaemia/diabetes status was classified as normoglycaemia, prediabetes or diabetes using both HbA
1C
-based and FPG/OGTT-based criteria, and their glycation gaps
GG
were calculated.
Results
The specificity of an HbA
1C
level of 6.5 % (48 mmol/mol) for diagnosis of FPG/OGTT-defined type 2 diabetes was 99 %, but its sensitivity was less than 37 %. HbA
1C
-diabetic patients had higher average blood glucose levels than FPG/OGTT-diabetic patients. With either set of criteria, high-
GG
patients were disproportionately numerous among those classified as diabetic and were disproportionately infrequent among those classified as normoglycaemic, but the effect was greater for the HbA
1C
criteria.
Conclusions
The differences between HbA
1C
-based and FPG/OGTT-based diagnoses are largely due to the influence of the glycation gap, which may also influence the early stages of FPG/OGTT-defined diabetes.