Abstract
Background: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is a proxy measure for glycemic control in diabetes. We investigated the trend for glycemic control in patients from three Danish counties using HbA1c measurements.
Methods: We studied 2454 patients from a population of 807,000 inhabitants for whom routine monitoring of diabetes using HbA1c-DCCT aligned was initiated in 2001. We estimated the incidence of monitored patients in the population. The progress in patients with originally diabetic HbA1c levels was investigated by cumulative probability plots, and the individual trend in clinical outcome was investigated by a modified difference plot.
Results: The age-standardized incidence of monitored patients was <0.5% in all regions. Patients with diabetic first HbA1c concentrations (≥6.62% HbA1c) showed on average 15% improved glycemic control in the first year. Further improvement was limited. The overall percentage above the treatment target (≥6.62% HbA1c) was 51% in 2003 compared to 59% in 2001, and the percentage with poor glycemic control (≥10.0% HbA1c) was reduced from 19% to 4%. Of patients with originally diabetic HbA1c levels, 15% showed progress in glycemic control, and 28% reached treatment targets. In patients with originally normal HbA1c, 75% showed an upward trend in HbA1c levels, which reached diabetic concentrations in 17%.
Conclusion: Patients with diabetic first HbA1c concentrations (≥6.62% HbA1c) showed on average 15% improved glycemic control in the first year. Further improvement was limited. In individual patients, 75% with originally diabetic HbA1c levels showed improved glycemic control after 3years, while 78% withoriginally normal concentrations showed an upwardtrend in HbA1c levels.
References
1. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977–86.10.1056/NEJM199309303291401Search in Google Scholar
2. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The relationship of glycemic exposure (HbA1c) to the risk of development and progression of retinopathy in the diabetes control and complication trial. Diabetes 1995;44:969–83.Search in Google Scholar
3. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837–53.10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07019-6Search in Google Scholar
4. Khaw K-T, Wareham N, Lubin R, Bingham S, Oakes S, Welch A, et al. Glucated haemoglobin, diabetes, and mortality in men in Norfolk cohort of European Prospective investigation of cancer and nutrition (EPIC-Norfolk). Br Med J 2001; 322:15–8.10.1136/bmj.322.7277.15Search in Google Scholar
5. Stratton IM, Adler A, Neil HAW, Matthews D, Manley SE, Cull CA, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. Br Med J 2000; 321:405–12.10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405Search in Google Scholar
6. Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Araki E, Miyata T, Isami S, Motoyoshi S, et al. Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study. Diabetes Research Clinical Practice 1995; 28:103–17.10.1016/0168-8227(95)01064-KSearch in Google Scholar
7. Jeffcoate SL. Diabetes control and complications: the role of glycated haemoglobin, 25years on. Diabetic Med 2004; 21:657–65.10.1046/j.1464-5491.2003.01065.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
8. American Diabetes Association. Position statements & ADA statements. Diabetes Care 2005;28:69–71.10.2337/diacare.28.suppl_1.S69Search in Google Scholar
9. European Diabetes Policy Group 1999. A desktop guide to type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 1999;16:716–30 (http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/philip.home/t2dg1999.htm#H).10.1046/j.1464-5491.1999.00166.xSearch in Google Scholar
10. Clark CM, How should we respond to the worldwide diabetes epidemic? Diabetes Care 1998; 21:475–6.10.2337/diacare.21.4.475Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Harris MI, Flegal KM, Cowie CC, Eberhardt MS, Goldstein DE, Little RR, et al. Prevalence of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in US adults. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. Diabetes Care 1998; 21:518–24.10.2337/diacare.21.4.518Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Borch-Johnsen K. Prevention of a public disease and its consequences. Ugeskr Laeger 2004; 166:1316–20.Search in Google Scholar
13. McCance DR, Hanson RL, Pettitt DJ, Bennett PH, Hadden DR, Knowler WC. Diagnosing diabetes mellitus – do we need new criteria?. Diabetologia 1997; 40:247–55.10.1007/s001250050671Search in Google Scholar
14. Resnick HE, Harris MI, Brock DB, Harris TB. American Diabetes Association diabetes diagnostic criteria, advancing age, and cardiovascular disease risk profiles: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Diabetes Care 2000; 23:176–80.10.2337/diacare.23.2.176Search in Google Scholar
15. Tuomilehto J, Lindström J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hämäläinen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, et al., for The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:1343–50.10.1056/NEJM200105033441801Search in Google Scholar
16. Mokdad AH, Bowman BA, Ford ES, Vinicor F, Marks JS, Koplan JP. The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States. J Am Med Assoc 2001; 286:1195–200.10.1001/jama.286.10.1195Search in Google Scholar
17. Gregg EW, Cadwell BL, Cheng YJ, Cowie CC, Williams DE, Geiss L, et al. Trends in the prevalence and ratio of diagnosed to undiagnosed diabetes according to obesity levels in the US. Diabetes Care 2004; 27:2806–12.10.2337/diacare.27.12.2806Search in Google Scholar
18. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005;28:S4–S36.10.2337/diacare.28.suppl_1.S4Search in Google Scholar
19. The Danish Diabetes Association. Diabetesbehandling i Danmark – mål og midler, 2005 (http://www.diabetes.dk).Search in Google Scholar
20. Jørgensen LG, Brandslund I, Stahl M, Hyltoft Petersen P, Iversen S, Klitgaard N, et al. Upper reference limit, analytical quality specifications and clinical use of haemoglobin A1c. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2002; 62:609–22.10.1080/003655102764654349Search in Google Scholar
21. Schellhase KG, Koepsell TD, Weiss NS. Glycemic control and the risk of multiple microvascular diabetic complications. Fam Med 2005; 37:125–30.Search in Google Scholar
22. Gale EA. Is there really an epidemic of type 2 diabetes. Lancet 2003; 362:503–4.10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14148-7Search in Google Scholar
23. Danish Statistics. Population statistics for Danish Counties, 2005 (http://www.dst.dk/).Search in Google Scholar
24. Steffes M, Cleary P, Goldstein D, Little R, Wiedmeyer HM, Rohlfing C, et al. Haemoglobin A1c measurements over nearly two decades: sustaining comparable values throughout the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Study. Clin Chem 2005; 51:753–8.10.1373/clinchem.2004.042143Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
25. Hyltoft Petersen P, Blaabjerg O, Andersen M, Jorgensen LG, Schousboe K, Jensen E. Graphical interpretation of confidence curves in rankit plots. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:715–24.Search in Google Scholar
26. Diem K, editor. Documenta Geigy. Scientific Tables, 6th ed. Ardsley, NY: Geigy Pharmaceuticals, 1962.Search in Google Scholar
27. Campbell MJ, Gardiner MJ. Calculating confidence intervals for some non-parametric analyses. In: Gardiner MJ, Altman DG, editors. Statistics with confidence, 6th ed. London, UK: Br Med J, 1994:71–9.Search in Google Scholar
28. http://diabetes.about.com/cs.newswire/a/bln7A1c404_p.htm, 2005.Search in Google Scholar
29. Jørgensen LG, Hyltoft Petersen P, Brandslund I. The impact of variability in the risk of disease exemplified by diagnosing diabetes mellitus based on ADA and WHO criteria as gold standard. Int J Risk Assess Manage 2005; 5:358–73.10.1504/IJRAM.2005.007177Search in Google Scholar
30. Hyltoft Petersen P, Brandslund I, Jørgensen L, Stahl M, de Fine Olivarius N, Borch-Johnsen K. Evaluation of systematic and random factors in measurements of fasting plasma glucose as the basis for analytical quality specifications in the diagnosis of diabetes. 3. Impact of the new WHO and ADA recommendations on diagnosis of diabetes mellitus III. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2001; 61:191–204.Search in Google Scholar
31. Jørgensen LG, Brandslund I, Hyltoft Petersen P, de Fine Olivarius N, Stahl M. The effect of the new ADA and WHO guidelines on the number of diagnosed diabetes mellitus cases. Clin Chem Lab Med 2003; 41:1246–50.10.1515/CCLM.2003.191Search in Google Scholar
32. de Bievre P. Target measurement uncertainty II: are they coming? Accred Qual Assur 2004; 9:651–52.10.1007/s00769-004-0831-0Search in Google Scholar
33. Henny J, Hyltoft Petersen P. Reference values: from philosophy to a tool for laboratory medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:686.10.1515/CCLM.2004.117Search in Google Scholar
34. Ritchie RF, Palomaki G. Selecting relevant populations for reference intervals. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:702–9.Search in Google Scholar
35. Jørgensen LG, Brandslund I, Hyltoft Petersen P. Should we maintain the 95 percent reference intervals in the era of wellness testing. A concept paper. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:747–51.Search in Google Scholar
36. Klee GG. Clinical interpretation of reference intervals and reference limits. A plea for assay harmonization. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:752–7.10.1515/CCLM.2004.127Search in Google Scholar
37. Jørgensen LG, Løber J, Carlsen NLT, Momsen G, Hirsch F. Serum neuron specific enolase (S-NSE) reference interval evaluation by time-resolved immunofluorometry compared with a radioimmunoassay. Clin Chim Acta 1996; 249:77–91.10.1016/0009-8981(96)06278-XSearch in Google Scholar
38. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurements. Lancet 1986; 8476:307–10.Search in Google Scholar
©2005 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York
