Review Article - Insights in Nutrition and Metabolism (2017) Volume 1, Issue 1

HbA1c as a marker of prediabetes: A reliable screening tool or not

Ivana R Sequeira¹, Sally D Poppitt^1,2*

¹Human Nutrition Unit, School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ

²Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ

*Corresponding Author:

Sally D Poppitt
School of Biological Sciences and Department of Medicine
University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland
New Zealand
Tel: +64 [09] 630 5160
E-mail: s.poppitt@auckland.ac.nz

Received date: February 21, 2017 Accepted date: March 28, 2017 Published date: April 03, 2017

Citation: Sequeira IR, Poppitt SD. HbA_1c as a marker of prediabetes: A reliable screening tool or not? Insights Nutr Metabol 2017;1(1):11-20.

Copyright: ©2017 Sequeira IR, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

Increasing global prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has resulted in concerted efforts to improve predictors for development of this obesity-related disorder. Establishing markers that identify prediabetes, an intermediary state of glycaemia above that of healthy individuals but below frank T2D, is an important focus. International cut offs have long been based on the 2 h WHO-defined oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), but more recent use of the quicker and cheaper marker of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) has become widespread in clinical practice and public health. The definition of people with prediabetes in turn has expanded from those with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) to include individuals with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and/or raised HbA1c. Whilst HbA1c has been recommended since 2010 for both T2D and prediabetes screening, concerns have been raised over validity particularly for identifying those who will later develop T2D. Depending on criteria, HbA1c may identify only 50% with abnormal OGTT or misclassify those with normal physiology. Models predicting average time intervals for progression to T2D from prediabetes are commonly limited by ethnic, racial and gender differences, and different criteria further result in variable estimates of prediabetes prevalence and impact those eligible for lifestyle interventions. Whilst HbA1c may provide a good marker of frank T2D, some recommend its use in prediabetes only in conjunction with fasting plasma glucose (FPG). This review updates current opinion on HbA1c as an effective screening method for categorising high-risk prediabetic individuals and those requiring fast track into lifestyle modification programs.

Keywords

Glycated haemoglobin, HbA_1c, Type 2 diabetes, Prediabetes, Fasting plasma glucose, Oral glucose tolerance test, Impaired glucose tolerance, Impaired fasting glucose.

Abbreviations

WHO: World Health Organization; ADA: American Diabetes Association; HbA_1c: Glycated Haemoglobin; IGT: Impaired Glucose Tolerance; IFG: Impaired Fasting Glucose

HbA_1c as a Marker of Prediabetes

Introduction

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is becoming an increasingly common disease with incidence rates that are rising rapidly in parallel with the rising global prevalence of overweight and obesity [1]. In 1994 approximately 1 million people globally were reported with T2D, which increased to 382 million in 2013, and now with a projected increase to 592 million over the next 20 years [2]. High T2D prevalence results in both decreased quality of life for the individual and increased government health care costs resulting from increased morbidity, largely a result of macro and microvascular conditions caused by long-term elevations in peripheral blood glucose. A disease long known in those who are ‘overweight and over forty’ it is gradually becoming a disease of younger adults, adolescents and even children as lifestyle changes lead to weight gain and increased adiposity [3]. Those who have high levels of central adiposity are at particular risk of T2D, with abdominal obesity strongly associated with important changes in body composition including lipid overspill/infiltration into critical organs such as the pancreas and liver [4].

Whilst it has long been shown that weight loss can reverse the high blood glucose levels by which T2D is defined [5], and thus halt the worsening of T2D-driven macro and microvascular complications, successful long term weight loss is difficult to achieve and rarely successful for most overweight individuals other than those undergoing invasive bariatric procedures [6,7]. Industrialised environments have led to a major change in diet and physical activity over the past 40-50 years that strongly promotes weight gain and prevents weight loss.

In addition, even some individuals who appear outwardly lean and healthy may have increased T2D risk as a result of lipid infiltration into organs, an increasing common phenomenon for example in Asian populations, and which has been termed the ‘thin on the outside fat on the inside’ (TOFI) profile [8]. Identifying who in our community is at increased risk of T2D must be an important part of any disease prevention strategy. Developing simple public health screening methods that effectively identify individuals who are at a greater risk of T2D, is extremely important as it allows timely intervention both to delay and/or prevent progression. Measurement of glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), a longer term marker of high blood glucose concentration, is a simple and cheap method that has been adopted by the ADA within the past 10 years [9] for diagnosis of T2D. Glycation of haemoglobin (Hb) occurs throughout the lifespan of a red blood cell which is typically 120 days, which means the relative proportion of HbA_1c at any one time depends on the mean circulating blood glucose level over that 3 month period. Use of HbA_1c as a screening marker has rapidly been adopted in clinical practice by a growing number of countries where it may provide an excellent cost efficient approach to T2D screening providing it is shown to have adequate sensitivity and specificity. Comparison of costs from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) UK, for example, showed the indicative cost of an HbA_1c test to be half that of an OGTT [GB£4.04/US$5.05 vs. GB£7.48/US$9.34) [10] when widespread testing was adopted in 2011 [11]. Whilst there is evidence that it may be a good marker of frank T2D, there is considerably more controversy as to whether it may also correctly identify those prediabetic individuals with increased future risk of T2D but as yet without the full disease [12].

Prediabetes

A high risk profile for T2D has been officially recognized for many years by varied names, such as ‘borderline diabetes’ [13] and is primarily based on an individual’s glycaemic state. More recently the term ‘prediabetes’ or ‘intermediate hyperglycaemia’ has evolved [14]. Irrespective of terminology, all are defined by glucose parameters that are higher than normal physiology but lower than the threshold limits set for diagnosis of T2D. However screening has been largely dependent on the criteria that has been used to define this intermediary glycaemic state, and which has varied considerably from year to year (Table 1), in turn altering the cohort of individuals who are considered at increased risk of T2D and hence most in need of prevention and/or treatment. To better predict when this increased risk begins, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed criterion to demarcate and classify individuals with newly identified intermediate hyperglycaemia or prediabetes into two early stages of abnormal glucose homeostasis; [i] impaired fasting glucose (IFG) where an individual has poor glucose regulation and raised blood glucose even when overnight fasted and [ii] impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) where an individual fails to respond to glucose consumed as part of a meal leading to raised postprandial blood glucose [15] (as shown in Table 1). Both result in high circulating levels of glucose, which in turn may adversely alter key proteins through glycation (e.g. HbA_1c), yet the IFG and IGT population may comprise quite different individuals or cohorts with quite different aetiology of prediabetes and little or no overlap. Whether HbA_1c can adequately predict risk of T2D in the absence of more detailed blood glucose assessment remains a topic of considerable debate.

Table 1. Diagnostic criteria for prediabetes.

Measurement recommended to exclude diabetes or IGT, † 2 h post load glucose measurement not recommended.

To consider in more detail, IFG reflects increased gluconeogenesis and increased hepatic glucose output into peripheral circulation even in the absence of a meal, i.e., when no dietary glucose has been consumed. This is determined by measuring fasting plasma glucose (FPG), following an 8-12 h overnight fast [16]. Conversely IGT is indicative of inadequate postprandial insulin secretion from the pancreas after glucose has been consumed as a bolus or within a meal, and which results in poor insulin-mediated glucose disposal from circulation into tissues. It is diagnosed using a standard WHO 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) where glucose levels are assessed over a 2 h period following a fixed glucose load [17]. Although pancreatic β-dysfunction and hence inadequate insulin secretion is present in individuals diagnosed with both isolated IFG and isolated IGT and both groups also experience insulin resistance, the site of the resistance is quite different. While individuals with IFG have severe hepatic insulin resistance with normal or near normal insulin sensitivity in skeletal muscle [18,19], those with IGT have severe insulin resistance in skeletal muscle with only a modest increase in hepatic insulin resistance [18, 20].

The WHO recommended cut offs based on these parameters received support from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) who in 2003 further lowered the cut points for diagnosis of IFG from 6.1-6.9 mmol/L to 5.6-6.9 mmol/L [9,21] (Table 1). Whilst this greatly expanded the population size considered to be at risk of later T2D, the term prediabetes has received criticism as not all diagnosed individuals progress to frank T2D and implies that no intervention may be necessary due to the absence of full blown disease. Annual incidence of progression to T2D in individuals with isolated IGT [4-6%] or isolated IFG (6-9%) have been reported to be lower than in those with both IFG and IGT [15-19%] [22]. Progression estimates in larger prospective studies have reported similar annualised incidence of risk using isolated IFG [23,24] or both [25]. Annually approximately 5-10% prediabetic individuals progress to T2D with rates varying depending on population characteristics as well as the criteria and cut offs used for defining prediabetes [26,27].

Whilst both FPG and OGTT have been relied upon to successfully screen ‘at risk’ individuals several key issues limit utility in routine practice. Both tests require precise preparation, including restricted diet and exercise on the day prior, to improve accuracy and individuals must be fasted overnight (minimum 8 h). Samples require immediate measurement and centrifugation within 30 min following collection. Owing to the inconvenience of measuring FPG or performing an OGTT and the day to day variability in blood glucose levels, the ADA recommended in 2010 that the screening and diagnostic accuracy be improved based on measures of glycosylated or glycated haemoglobin, HbA_1c (Table 1) [9]. The underlying premise for the addition of HbA_1c was that it would capture chronic exposure to both basal and postprandial hyperglycaemia in individuals over a longer period and therefore could reflect a combination of the pathophysiological defects underlying IFG and IGT over time.

HbA_1c – A More Favourable Marker for Diagnosis of Prediabetes and T2D?

HbA_1c was first described in 1969 by Rahbar et al. [28] and due to the biochemistry of the protein considered to be a more reliable long term marker of glycaemic control [29], with elevated levels positively correlated to the increased risk of T2D [30,31]. Importantly, measures of HbA_1c provide a weighted average of blood glucose for the lifespan of the red blood cell, typically 2-3 months, with the last month contributing ~50% of the result [32]. The Hb molecule is a tetramer and is formed of two alpha and two beta globin chains. Exposure to high concentrations of blood glucose results in the non-enzymatic glycation of Hb at various sites of the molecule, and when reversibly glycated at the N-terminal valine residue of the beta chain leads to the formation of HbA_1c [33]. Logistically, the test can be performed at any time of the day and does not require patient preparation or an overnight fast. The marker reliably measures degree of glucose exposure over time [34,35] and is better related to the risk of micro and macro vascular complications [36-38]. Unlike a simple FPG assessment, HbA_1c levels also represent postprandial glucose intolerance and therefore could be more efficacious in screening overweight prediabetic individuals with glucose abnormalities [39]. Furthermore, HbA_1c measures are reported to be relatively stable and have greater reproducibility and lower variability between and within individuals than that observed for glucose measurements [40]. The day to day within person variation in HbA_1c is reported to be <2% in comparison to 12-15% for FPG [41,42].

HbA_1c Cut Points – Where to Set the Threshold Values

Despite the favourable attributes of HbA_1c measurements there have been several issues with the use of this marker that may preclude meaningful comparisons between published data sets. One of the key limitations still under debate by Expert Committees is the threshold values for diagnosis of prediabetes. Ideally selection of diagnostic HbA_1c cut points for prediabetes ought to be based on evidence that intervention, when applied to the ‘at risk’ group, results not only in the prevention of T2D but also later complications. However trials addressing these issues have reached no consensus regarding optimal cut points for HbA_1c. In the absence of such data, Expert Committees rely on information about the shape of risk curves for complications such as retinopathy; much like that for the cut offs for T2D. WHO suggested HbA_1c cut offs for prediabetes be set at 6.0–6.4% [42–46 mmol/mol]. This has latterly been revised by the ADA and lowered to 5.7–6.4% [39–46 mmol/mol] [14], a decision however that has not been endorsed by any other group. These limits are in agreement with a recent systematic review of 16 prospective studies that show that HbA_1c values between 5.5–6.5% were associated with a significant increased risk for developing T2D [43]. An argument can however be made against the lowered the threshold as it may cause an imperfect overlap to create a large, poorly characterized and heterogeneous category of glucose intolerance resulting in an increased prevalence of prediabetes [44-46].

The optimal thresholds of HbA_1c for the diagnosis of frank T2D based on incidence of retinopathy, a common comorbidity of T2D caused by hyperglycaemia-driven changes in microvascular blood vessels of the eye [47-49], are also under careful scrutiny. While the ADA HbA_1c cut point of 6.5% [48 mmol/mol] has been shown to represent the same threshold for increased prevalence of retinopathy as FPG ≥ 7.0 mmol/L and 2 h plasma glucose levels ≥ 11.1 mmol/L [14], only a single study has validated the inflection point of HbA_1c ≥ 6.5% for increased incidence of retinopathy [50]. This result was not supported by other studies such as that in Pima Indians [51] where the threshold HbA_1c for retinopathy was ≥ 6.9% [52 mmol/mol], while in the European DESIR (Data from an Epidemiological study on the Insulin Resistance Syndrome) study [52] the positive predictive values for retinopathy increased sharply at HbA_1c 6.0% [42 mmol/mol]. Again, in the Hoorn Study [53] a clear cut off point could not be identified due to the wide range of HbA_1c [5.8–13.1%] that described 21.1% incidence of retinopathy in the Dutch population. Similarly, a 14 year follow up study by Selvin et al. [54] did not find a HbA_1c threshold for microvascular outcomes before or after adjusting for covariates. Based on these longitudinal studies the HbA_1c cut point of 6.5% for diagnosis of T2D also appears to require further investigation.

Biological Variability in Cut Points – Do Threshold Values Apply to All?

Whilst HbA_1c is a long term robust marker for determining variability in glycaemic status the observed discrepancies in reported literature requires a better understanding of biochemical changes that may impact results. HbA_1c threshold limits may be affected by ethnic and racial differences in red cell turnover or Hb glycation that account for variability in HbA_1c measures between populations. This is termed the glycation gap or glycation index [55]. A systematic qualitative review of HbA_1c levels across racial and ethnic groups in the US, has reported that those of African-American descent had the highest level of HbA_1c in comparison to Hispanics, and that both groups had greater levels than non-Hispanic Caucasians [56]. Likewise, in the South Carolina Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Program (SCCDPP), HbA_1c levels remained 0.3 and 0.4% significantly higher in African American nondiabetic men and women than in Caucasians [57].

Use of the HbA_1c ≥ 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) cut point, to OGTT and FPG, was shown to detect different populations with T2D [58-60], resulting in both false positive and false negative diagnosis compared to glucose testing [61-63]. An assessment between the markers has shown that individuals with increased glycation of haemoglobin, i.e., high glycators, would have higher HbA_1c levels whilst those with decreased glycation, i.e., low glycators, would have lower HbA_1c levels than that expected from their FPG values [55]. Non-Hispanic African Americans have been reported to have higher HbA_1c at any given value of FPG or 2-hr glucose than Non-Hispanic Caucasians [64]. Again when ethnic differences were included, for a given value of mean blood glucose, HbA_1c values have been reported to be 0.27%, 0.32% and 0.42% higher in Asians, Hispanics and Africans respectively [65]. Similar differences have also been observed in other multi-ethnic studies in the UK [66] and Singapore [67].

The importance of genetics on heritability of HbA_1c has been established in twins [68,69] and is associated with nonglycaemic determinants of HbA_1c [70] and in part has been shown to explain the greater and differential susceptibility of Africans and East Asian sub populations to developing T2D than Caucasians [71]. Hence the body of evidence suggests that a set universal cut off point of HbA_1c may not be applicable across all ethnic groups, and that ethnic specific cut offs may be needed to identify individuals at risk. This rationale was endorsed in a study conducted in Taiwanese individuals in whom the predicted time course for progression to T2D at HbA_1c 6.5% was found to be 2.49 years [72]. Was this study to be conducted in a multi-ethnic population the prediction may likely increase or decrease. Furthermore embedded within these complexities, is that age may also impact of the levels of HbA_1c with a recent study by Yan et al [73] demonstrating that optimal cut offs for HbA_1c for diagnosing T2D were 5.7% in young and middle aged group [39.9 ± 8.0 years] and this increased to 5.9% in the elderly group [71.6 ± 6.7 years] whilst for prediabetes thresholds were at 5.6% and 5.7%, respectively.

To circumvent some of these criticisms with the ADA HbA_1c threshold, the use of two cut points, one to “rule-out” [HbA_1c ≤ 5.5%] and the second to “rule in” [HbA_1c ≥ 7.0%] T2D has been recommended [74]. The lower value was chosen for its 95% negative predictive value to rule out T2D whilst the upper limit, although higher than the recommended 6.5% cut off, would optimise the specificity of the test.

Standardisation of Methods and Reporting Units

The clinical relevance of the test has also been underscored by lack of standardization of the HbA_1c assay in terms of methodology and Units as reported between countries [75]. Efforts to unify assay methodologies according to reference standards were initiated by the National Glycohaemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP), the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) [76]. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) also subsequently developed an accuracy based definitive reference system for HbA_1c that is now recognised to be a worldwide reference standard [77]. Although the NGSP/DCCT/UKPDS and IFCC systems are well correlated, the number scales differ with the latter reporting HbA_1c as concentration [mmol/mol] and the former as glycation percentage (%).

Assay methods may also impact measured HbA_1c and requires that reported levels be viewed with caution as they may not truly reflect glycaemic control over 2-3 months in the presence of haemoglobinopathies, i.e., haemoglobin variants such as HbS, HbC, HbE and HbF, which have the potential to interfere with the assay methods [78]. Red cell turnover too may impact results; falsely raised or conversely decreased HbA_1c concentrations are observed due to increased or decreased circulating erythrocyte life span [79] or impaired reticulocyte production and haemolysis respectively. Moreover, assay measurements could also be affected by greater micronutrient intake such as Vitamin C and E which have the potential to reduce rates of glycation; however the degree to which this occurs at pharmacological doses is not determined [80]. Similarly iron deficiency anaemia would cause an overestimation [81] in measured HbA_1c. This has been recently reported in a study conducted in Asian Indians, wherein the prevalence of prediabetes and T2D using HbA_1c was 25.9% whilst using OGTT was only 10.4%, the dissimilarity due to one-third anaemic participants [82]. Similarly, inter individual differences in intra-erythrocyte 2,3-diphosphoglycerate that catalyses the production of HbA_1c may also account for variability in test results [83]. Female sex hormones [84] and differences in visceral fat [85] have also been shown to contribute to inconsistencies in measured values.

Adopting a Buddy System - Combining HbA_1c with 2-H OGTT or FPG to Improve Diagnostic Accuracy for Risk Prediction

A recent large meta-analysis based on studies that adopted the WHO and/or ADA criteria for prediabetes reported that isolated HbA_1c is neither sensitive nor specific for diagnosing the intermediate state of prediabetes [12]. The analysis confirmed FPG to be more likely to be specific, with respective ADA (2010) HbA_1c cut points of <6.5% and <5.7% not reliably excluding the presence of T2D and prediabetes. Differences in pathophysiological mechanisms, phenotype and other factors affecting HbA_1c could all explain the observed discordance between FPG/OGTT and HbA_1c classification of prediabetes [24,73,86,87]. The joint guidelines by the European Society for Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) have recommended that an OGTT still be conducted in the absence of positive HbA_1c diagnosis in those individuals identified as at risk based on simple phenotypic characteristics and/or medical history including ethnicity, age, body mass index (BMI), hypertension and prior stroke [88]. Some researchers have recommended a shortened 1 h glucose measurement (glucose ≥ 8.6 mmol/L) during OGTT be used with HbA_1c for diagnosis of prediabetes [89-92]. Others note that combined use of FPG and HbA_1c identifies greater numbers of T2D than HbA_1c alone (52.2% vs. 32.3%) [93], again with improved diagnostic sensitivity and specificity [73,94] for early identification of high risk prediabetics, with increased Hazards Ratio of 38.6 (95% CI 27.6–54.0) [24] than single markers alone. Since each marker for diagnosis has its own limitations it appears likely that including either OGTT and/or FPG with HbA_1c would improve sensitivity and specificity to predict at risk individuals [95] and so better represent different facets of metabolic progression through prediabetes to T2D [27].

Conclusion

Traditionally, the diagnosis of prediabetes and T2D has relied on the measurement of glucose concentrations in timed samples, such as FPG; in random samples independent of prandial status and/or OGTT. The introduction of HbA_1c by ADA in 2010 as diagnostic criteria was based on the premise that it would afford cheaper, more convenient and accurate screening of high risk individuals. However subsequent use of the marker within the last decade has led several published works to suggest that its sensitivity and specificity to diagnose high risk cohorts needs to be readdressed. HbA_1c is limited by ethnic, racial and gender differences, possibly a result of differences in glycation and/or red cell survival, and clearly identifies a different pool of individuals as prediabetic compared to those identified by FPG or OGTT and cohort overlap can be low. Better understanding of the limitations of HbA_1c may improve prediction and diagnostic accuracy, much needed in order to identify those individuals who require fast track into lifestyle modification [100-102] and/or other therapeutic programs [103,104]. Currently, use as a complementary test to FPG or OGTT remains likely to be the approach that is most beneficial.

Acknowledgement

IS holds a postdoctoral fellowship funded by MBIE National Science Challenge High Value Nutrition program. SDP holds the Fonterra Chair in Human Nutrition at the University of Auckland, and receives funding from NZ Health Research Council and MBIE National Science Challenge High Value Nutrition program.

References

1. IDF. International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas. 7th Edition. 2015.
2. Alberti KG, Zimmet PZ. Diabetes: A look to the future. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(1):e1-e2.
3. Zimmet PZ, Magliano DJ, Herman WH, et al. Diabetes: A 21st century challenge. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(1):56-64.
4. Hill MJ, Metcalfe D, McTernan PG. Obesity and diabetes: Lipids, 'nowhere to run to'. Clin Sci. 2009;116(2):113-23.
5. Esposito K, Maiorino MI, Petrizzo M, et al. Remission of type 2 diabetes: Is bariatric surgery ready for prime time? Endocrine. 2015;48(2):417-21.
6. Panunzi S, De Gaetano A, Carnicelli A, Mingrone G. Predictors of remission of diabetes mellitus in severely obese individuals undergoing bariatric surgery: Do BMI or procedure choice matter? A meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2015;261:459-67.
7. Greenway FL. Physiological adaptations to weight loss and factors favouring weight regain. Int J Obes. 2015;39(8):1188-96.
8. Thomas EL, Parkinson JR, Frost GS, et al. The missing risk: MRI and MRS phenotyping of abdominal adiposity and ectopic fat. Obesity. 2012;20(1):76-87.
9. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(1):S62-S9.
10. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg130/resources/costing-statement-183367117
11. National Health Service: NICE issue new diabetes guidelines.
12. Barry E, Roberts S, Oke J, et al. Efficacy and effectiveness of screen and treat policies in prevention of type 2 diabetes: Systematic review and meta-analysis of screening tests and interventions. Br Med J. 2017;356:i6538.
13. McDonald G, Hoet J, Butterfield W. Diabetes mellitus: Report of a WHO expert committee. WHO Technical Report Series. 1965;310.
14. International Expert Committee. International Expert Committee report on the role of the A1C assay in the diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(7):1327-34.
15. American Diabetes Association. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(1):S13-22.
16. Inzucchi SE. Diagnosis of diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(6):542-50.
17. Sacks DB. A1C versus glucose testing: A comparison. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(2):518-23.
18. Ferrannini E, Gastaldelli A, Iozzo P. Pathophysiology of prediabetes. Med Clin North Am. 2011;95(2):327-39.
19.         DeFronzo RA. From the triumvirate to the ominous octet: a new paradigm for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes. 2009;58(4):773-95.
20. Abdul-Ghani MA, Tripathy D, DeFronzo RA. Contributions of ß-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance to the pathogenesis of impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(5):1130-9.
21. American Diabetes Association. Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes care. 2003;26(1):s5-s20.
22. Gerstein HC, Santaguida P, Raina P, et al. Annual incidence and relative risk of diabetes in people with various categories of dysglycemia: a systematic overview and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007;78(3):305-12.
23. Yeboah J, Bertoni AG, Herrington DM, et al. Impaired fasting glucose and the risk of incident diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular events in an adult population: MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(2):140-6.
24. Heianza Y, Hara S, Arase Y, et al. HbA 1c 5•7–6•4% and impaired fasting plasma glucose for diagnosis of prediabetes and risk of progression to diabetes in Japan (TOPICS 3): A longitudinal cohort study. Lancet. 2011;378(9786):147-55.
25. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. 10 year follow-up of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Lancet. 2009;374(9702):1677-86.
26. Forouhi N, Luan J, Hennings S, et al. Incidence of type 2 diabetes in England and its association with baseline impaired fasting glucose: the Ely study 1990–2000. Diabet Med. 2007;24(2):200-7.
27. Nathan DM, Davidson MB, DeFronzo RA, et al. Impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(3):753-9.
28. Rahbar S, Blumenfeld O, Ranney HM. Studies of an unusual hemoglobin in patients with diabetes mellitus. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1969;36(5):838-43.
29. Gonen B, Rochman H, Rubenstein A, et al. Haemoglobin A1: An indicator of the metabolic control of diabetic patients. Lancet. 1977;310(8041):734-7.
30. Diabetes Control 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;1993(329):977-86.
31. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonyl ureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837-53.
32. Jeffcoate S. Diabetes control and complications: the role of glycated haemoglobin, 25 years on. Diabet Med. 2004;21(7):657-65.
33. Bunn HF, Gabbay KH, Gallop PM. The glycosylation of hemoglobin: Relevance to diabetes mellitus. Science. 1978;200(4337):21-7.
34. Nathan D, Turgeon H, Regan S. Relationship between glycated haemoglobin levels and mean glucose levels over time. Diabetologia. 2007;50(11):2239-44.
35. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, et al. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1473-8.
36. Khaw K-T, Wareham N, Bingham S, et al. Association of hemoglobin A1c with cardiovascular disease and mortality in adults: The European prospective investigation into cancer in Norfolk. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(6):413-20.
37. Myint PK, Sinha S, Wareham NJ, et al. Glycated hemoglobin and risk of stroke in people without known diabetes in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC)–Norfolk Prospective Population Study. Stroke. 2007;38(2):271-5.
38. Haffner SM, Stern MP, Hazuda HP, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors in confirmed prediabetic individuals: Does the clock for coronary heart disease start ticking before the onset of clinical diabetes? J Am Med Assoc. 1990;263(21):2893-8.
39. Incani M, Sentinelli F, Perra L, Pani MG, Porcu M, Lenzi A, et al. Glycated hemoglobin for the diagnosis of diabetes and prediabetes: Diagnostic impact on obese and lean subjects and phenotypic characterization. J Diabetes Investig. 2015;6(1):44-50.
40. Rohlfing C, Wiedmeyer HM, Little R, et al. Biological variation of glycohemoglobin. Clin Chem. 2002;48(7):1116-8.
41. Ollerton RL, Playle R, Ahmed K, et al. Day-to-day variability of fasting plasma glucose in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic subjects. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(3):394-8.
42. Petersen PH, Jørgensen LG, Brandslund I, et al. Consequences of bias and imprecision in measurements of glucose and HbA_1c for the diagnosis and prognosis of diabetes mellitus. Scand J Clin Lab Investig. 2005;65(240):51-60.
43. Zhang X, Gregg EW, Williamson DF, et al. A1C level and future risk of diabetes: A systematic review. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(7):1665-73.
44. Xu Y, Wang L, He J, et al. Prevalence and control of diabetes in Chinese adults. J Am Med Assoc. 2013;310(9):948-59.
45. James C, Bullard KM, Rolka DB, et al. Implications of alternative definitions of prediabetes for prevalence in US adults. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(2):387-91.
46. Kahn R, Davidson MB. The reality of type 2 diabetes prevention. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(4):943-9.
47. Sabanayagam C, Khoo EY, Lye WK, et al. Diagnosis of diabetes mellitus using HbA_1c in Asians: relationship between HbA_1c and retinopathy in a multi-ethnic Asian population. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;100(2):689-96.
48. Park YM, Ko SH, Lee JM, et al. Glycaemic and haemoglobin A1c thresholds for detecting diabetic retinopathy: The fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011). Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;104(3):435-42.
49. Wang B, Liu MC, Li XY, et al. Cut-off Point of HbA_1c for diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in Chinese individuals. PloS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0166597.
50. Tsugawa Y, Takahashi O, Meigs JB, et al. New diabetes diagnostic threshold of hemoglobin A1c and the 3 year incidence of retinopathy. Diabetes. 2012;61(12):3280-4.
51. McCane D, Hanson RL, Charles MA, et al. Comparison of tests for glycated haemoglobin and fasting and two hour plasma glucose concentrations as diagnostic methods for diabetes. Br Med J. 1994;308(6940):1323-8.
52. Massin P, Lange C, Tichet J, et al. Hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose levels as predictors of retinopathy at 10 years: The French DESIR study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(2):188-95.
53. van Leiden HA, Dekker JM, Moll AC, et al. Risk factors for incident retinopathy in a diabetic and non-diabetic population: The Hoorn study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(2):245-51.
54. Selvin E, Ning Y, Steffes MW, et al. Glycated hemoglobin and the risk of kidney disease and retinopathy in adults with and without diabetes. Diabetes. 2011;60(1):298-305.
55. Yudkin J, Forrest R, Jackson C, et al. Unexplained variability of glycated haemoglobin in non-diabetic subjects not related to glycaemia. Diabetologia. 1990;33(4):208-15.
56. Kirk JK, Bell RA, Bertoni AG, et al. Ethnic disparities: control of glycemia, blood pressure and LDL cholesterol among US adults with type 2 diabetes. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39(9):1489-501.
57. Eberhardt MS, Lackland DT, Wheeler FC, et al. Is race related to glycemic control? An assessment of glycosylated hemoglobin in two South Carolina communities. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(10):1181-9.
58. Mohan V, Vijayachandrika V, Gokulakrishnan K, et al. HbA_1c cut points to define various glucose intolerance groups in Asian Indians. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(3):515-9.
59. Van't Riet E, Alssema M, Rijkelijkhuizen JM, et al. Relationship between A1c and glucose levels in the general Dutch population. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(1):61-6.
60. Zhou X, Ji L, Luo Y, et al. Performance of HbA_1c for detecting newly diagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes in Chinese communities living in Beijing. Diabet Med. 2009;26(12):1262-8.
61. Davidson MB, Schriger DL, Peters AL, et al. Relationship between fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin: Potential for false-positive diagnoses of type 2 diabetes using new diagnostic criteria. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;281(13):1203-10.
62. Carson AP, Reynolds K, Fonseca VA, et al. Comparison of A1C and fasting glucose criteria to diagnose diabetes among US adults. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(1):95-7.
63. Mostafa S, Davies M, Webb D, et al. The potential impact of using glycated haemoglobin, HbA_1c, as the preferred diagnostic tool for type 2 diabetes (T2D) in comparison to an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in a UK multi-ethnic population. Diabet Med. 2010;72:762-9.
64. Ziemer DC, Kolm P, Weintraub WS, et al. Glucose-independent, black–white differences in hemoglobin A1c levels. A cross-sectional analysis of 2 studies. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(12):770-7.
65. Wolffenbuttel BH, Herman WH, Gross JL, et al. Ethnic differences in glycemic markers in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(10):2931-6.
66. Mostafa SA, Khunti K, Srinivasan BT, et al. The potential impact and optimal cut-points of using glycated haemoglobin, HbA_1c, to detect people with impaired glucose regulation in a UK multi-ethnic cohort. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;90(1):100-8.
67. Venkataraman K, Kao S, Thai A, et al. Ethnicity modifies the relation between fasting plasma glucose and HbA_1c in Indians, Malays and Chinese. Diabet Med. 2012;29(7):911-7.
68. Simonis-Bik AM, Eekhoff EM, Diamant M, et al. The heritability of HbA_1c and fasting blood glucose in different measurement settings. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2008;11(6):597-602.
69. Snieder H, Sawtell PA, Ross L, et al. HbA_1c levels are genetically determined even in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2001;50(12):2858-63.
70. Cohen RM, Snieder H, Lindsell CJ, et al. Evidence for independent heritability of the glycation gap (glycosylation gap) fraction of HbA_1c in non-diabetic twins. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(8):1739-43.
71. Kodama K, Tojjar D, Yamada S, et al. Ethnic differences in the relationship between insulin sensitivity and insulin response. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(6):1789-96.
72. Huang CL, Iqbal U, Nguyen PA, et al. Using hemoglobin A1C as a predicting model for time interval from pre-diabetes progressing to diabetes. PloS ONE. 2014;9(8):e104263.
73. Yan ST, Xiao HY, Tian H, et al. The cut-offs and performance of glycated hemoglobin for diagnosing diabetes and prediabetes in a young and middle-aged population and in an elderly population. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2015;109(2):238-45.
74. Lu ZX, Walker KZ, O'dea K, et al. A1C for screening and diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(4):817-9.
75. Boucher B, Burrin J, Gould B, et al. A collaborative study of the measurement of glycosylated haemoglobin by several methods in seven laboratories in the United Kingdom. Diabetologia. 1983;24(4):265-71.
76. Little RR, Rohlfing CL, Wiedmeyer HM, et al. The national glycohemoglobin standardization program: A five year progress report. Clin Chem. 2001;47(11):1985-92.
77. Weykamp C, John WG, Mosca A, et al. The IFCC reference measurement system for HbA_1c: A 6 year progress report. Clin Chem. 2008;54(2):240-8.
78. Little RR, Roberts WL. A review of variant hemoglobins interfering with hemoglobin A1c measurement. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(3):446-51.
79. Virtue MA, Furne JK, Nuttall FQ, et al. Relationship between GHb concentration and erythrocyte survival determined from breath carbon monoxide concentration. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(4):931-5.
80. Camargo JL, Stifft J, Gross JL. The effect of aspirin and vitamins C and E on HbA 1c assays. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2006;372(1):206-9.
81. Ng JM, Cooke M, Bhandari S, et al. The effect of iron and erythropoietin treatment on the A1C of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(11):2310-3.
82. Hardikar PS, Joshi SM, Bhat DS, et al. Spuriously high prevalence of prediabetes diagnosed by HbA_1c in young Indians partly explained by hematological factors and iron deficiency anemia. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(4):797-802.
83. Gould BJ, Davie SJ, Yudkin JS. Investigation of the mechanism underlying the variability of glycated haemoglobin in non-diabetic subjects not related to glycaemia. Clinica Chimica Acta. 1997;260(1):49-64.
84. Kalish GM, Barrett-Connor E, Laughlin GA, et al. Association of endogenous sex hormones and insulin resistance among postmenopausal women: Results from the postmenopausal estrogen/progestin intervention trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88(4):1646-52.
85. Araneta MRG, Barrett-Connor E. Ethnic differences in visceral adipose tissue and type 2 diabetes: Filipino, African-American and white women. Obes Res. 2005;13(8):1458-65.
86. Mann DM, Carson AP, Shimbo D, et al. Impact of A1C screening criterion on the diagnosis of pre-diabetes among US adults. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(10):2190-5.
87. Marini MA, Succurro E, Castaldo E, et al. Cardiometabolic risk profiles and carotid atherosclerosis in individuals with prediabetes identified by fasting glucose, post-challenge glucose and hemoglobin A1c criteria. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(5):1144-9.
88. Rydén L, Grant PJ, Anker SD, et al. ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD. The Task Force on diabetes, pre-diabetes and cardiovascular diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and developed in collaboration with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eur Heart J. 2013;34(39):3035-87.
89. Kim JY, Goran MI, Toledo-Corral CM, et al. Comparing glycemic indicators of prediabetes: A prospective study of obese Latino Youth. Pediatr Diabetes. 2015;16(8):640-3.
90. Jagannathan R, Sevick MA, Fink D, et al. The 1 h post-load glucose level is more effective than HbA_1c for screening dysglycemia. Acta Diabetologica. 2016;53(4):543-50.
91. Abdul-Ghani MA, Lyssenko V, Tuomi T, et al. Fasting versus postload plasma glucose concentration and the risk for future type 2 diabetes. Results from the Botnia study. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(2):281-6.
92. Alyass A, Almgren P, Akerlund M, et al. Modelling of OGTT curve identifies 1 h plasma glucose level as a strong predictor of incident type 2 diabetes: Results from two prospective cohorts. Diabetologia. 2015;58(1):87-97.
93. Lorenzo C, Wagenknecht LE, Hanley AJG, et al. A1C between 5.7 and 6.4% as a marker for identifying pre-diabetes, insulin sensitivity and secretion and cardiovascular risk factors. The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS). Diabetes Care. 2010;33(9):2104-9.
94. Hu Y, Liu W, Chen Y, et al. Combined use of fasting plasma glucose and glycated hemoglobin A1c in the screening of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. Acta Diabetologica. 2010;47(3):231-6.
95. Tura A, Gobl C, Moro E, et al. Insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction in people with prediabetes according to criteria based on glycemia and glycosylated hemoglobin. Endocrine J. 2017;64(1):117-22.
96. World Health Organization. WHO expert committee on diabetes mellitus: second report. Geneva, World Health Organization, (Techical Report Series, no 646). 1980.
97. World Health Organization. Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications: Report of a WHO consultation. Part 1. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Geneva, World Health Organization. 1999.
98. World Health Organization. Definition and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and intermediate hyperglycemia: Report of a WHO/IDF Consultation. Geneva, World Health Organization. 2006.
99. Gabir MM, Hanson RL, Dabelea D, et al. The 1997 American Diabetes Association and 1999 World Health Organization criteria for hyperglycemia in the diagnosis and prediction of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(8):1108-12.
100. Lindström J, Peltonen M, Eriksson J, et al. Improved lifestyle and decreased diabetes risk over 13 years: Long-term follow-up of the randomised Finnish diabetes prevention study (DPS). Diabetologia. 2013;56(2):284-93
101. Knowler W, Fowler S, Hamman R, et al. 10 year follow-up of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the diabetes prevention program outcomes study. Lancet. 2009;374(9702):1677-86.
102. Liu AY, Silvestre MP, Poppitt SD. Prevention of type 2 diabetes through lifestyle modification: Is there a role for higher-protein diets? Adv Nutr. 2015;6(6):665–73.
103. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. The 10 year cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention or metformin for diabetes prevention: an intent-to-treat analysis of the DPP/DPPOS. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(4):723-30.
104. Ferrannini E. Definition of intervention points in prediabetes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(8):667-75.