TY - JOUR
AR - JDMC-2019-1-103
TI - Good Agreement Between Hba1c Analyzed Using Capillary Electrophoresis, HPLC, Immunological and Enzymatic Methods
AU - Maria, Vallée
AU - Aleksandra,  Mandic-Havelka
AU - Anders, Larsson
AU - Anders, Elmgren
AU - Benny , Larsson
AU - Christin, Sisowath
AU - Gunnar , Nordin
AU - Lars-Olof, Hansson
AU - Maria, Lohmander
AU - Niclas , Rollborn
AU - Torbjörn , Åkerfeldt
JO - Journal of Diabetes Metabolism and its Complications
PY - 2019
DA - Thu 12, Sep 2019
SN - 2674-4163
DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.31487/j.JDMC.2019.01.03
UR - https://www.sciencerepository.org/good-agreement-between-hba1c-analyzed-using-capillary-electrophoresis-hplc-immunological-and-enzymatic-methods_JDMC-2019-1-103 
KW -  Analytical performance, capillary electrophoresis, enzymatic assay, HPLC, immunoassay
AB - Purpose: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is an essential marker for assessment of glycemic control in diabetes
patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between different HbA1c methods.
Methodology: We used blood samples to compare HbA1c results analyzed with Capillarys 3 Tera, Roche
Tina-Quant HbA1c Gen 3, BioRad Variant II Turbo (3 sites), Mono S® and Abbott Architect enzymatic
method. The comparisons were made as paired instrument comparisons with Capillarys 3 Tera.
Results: The linear correlations between the HbA1c methods were as follows:
Cobas 6000 = 0.982 x Capillarys 3 Tera + 0.975, R² = 0.994;
Architect c8000 = 0.982 x Capillarys 3 Tera + 1.064, R² = 0.994;
Mono S® = 0.916 x Capillarys 3 Tera + 3.397, R² = 0.965;
BioRad Variant II Turbo = 0.923 x Capillarys 3 Tera + 4.062, R² = 0.990;
Tosoh G8 = 0.963 x Capillarys 3 Tera + 3.895, R² = 0.996.
Conclusions: The different instrument platforms showed the best agreement in the 50-70 mmol/mol
interval. Above and below this range the methods separated into 2 groups, one consisting of Capillarys 3
Tera, Roche Tina-Quant and Abbott enzymatic method and the other group consisting of BioRad Variant II
Turbo, Tosoh G8 and Mono S®.