Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter September 6, 2021

Lot variation and inter-device differences contribute to poor analytical performance of the DCA Vantage™ HbA1c POCT instrument in a true clinical setting

Anders Abildgaard ORCID logo, Cindy Søndersø Knudsen, Lise Nørkjær Bjerg, Sten Lund and Julie Støy

Abstract

Objectives

The glycated haemoglobin fraction A1c (HbA1c) is widely used in the management of diabetes mellitus, and the Siemens DCA Vantage™ point-of-care testing (POCT) instrument offers rapid HbA1c results even far from a clinical laboratory. However, the analytical performance has been questioned, and not much is known about effects of changing reagent lot, instrument and operator. We therefore compared the analytical performance of the DCA Vantage™ with established routine methods (Tosoh G8/G11 ion exchange HPLC) in a true clinical setting at two Danish hospitals.

Methods

We extracted all routine clinical HbA1c results incidentally drawn from the same patient within 48 h (n=960 pairs) and evaluated the effect of reagent lot, operator and instrument. We also performed a prospective method comparison in our diabetes out-patient clinic (n=97).

Results

The critical difference (CD) between two POCT results varied between 5.14 and 6.61 mmol/mol (0.47–0.55%), and the analytical imprecision of the DCA Vantage™ (CVA) was >3%. Significant effect of reagent lot and inter-instrument differences were found, whereas no effect of operator was seen.

Conclusions

The DCA Vantage™ HbA1c analysis does not fulfil the prevailing analytical performance specifications, but rigorous validation of new reagent lots and continuous recalibration of instruments may potentially improve the precision substantially. Our findings, therefore, clearly emphasise the necessity of a close collaboration between clinicians and laboratory professionals in the POCT field. Finally, POCT HbA1c results should always be interpreted together with other measures of glycaemic control to avoid inappropriate change of patient treatments due to measurement uncertainty.


Corresponding author: Anders Abildgaard, MD, PhD, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Regional Hospital Horsens, Sundvej 30, 8700 Horsens, Denmark; and Steno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark, E-mail:

  1. Research funding: None declared.

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  5. Ethical approval: Not applicable.

References

1. International Expert Committee. International Expert Committee report on the role of the A1C assay in the diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1327–34. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc09-9033.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

2. Laiteerapong, N, Ham, SA, Gao, Y, Moffet, HH, Liu, JY, Huang, ES, et al.. The legacy effect in type 2 diabetes: impact of early glycemic control on future complications (the diabetes & aging study). Diabetes Care 2019;42:416–26. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-1144.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

3. Jeppsson, JO, Kobold, U, Barr, J, Finke, A, Hoelzel, W, Hoshino, T, et al.. Approved IFCC reference method for the measurement of HbA1c in human blood. Clin Chem Lab Med 2002;40:78–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2002.016.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Lenters-Westra, E, English, E. Understanding the use of sigma metrics in hemoglobin A1c analysis. Clin Lab Med 2017;37:57–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2016.09.006.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Kristensen, T, Waldorff, FB, Nexoe, J, Skovsgaard, CV, Olsen, KR. Variation in point-of-care testing of HbA1c in diabetes care in general practice. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2017;14:1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111363.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

6. Shephard, M, O’Brien, C, Burgoyne, A, Croft, J, Garlett, T, Barancek, K, et al.. Review of the cultural safety of a national Indigenous point-of-care testing program for diabetes management. Aust J Prim Health 2016;22:368–74. https://doi.org/10.1071/py15050.Search in Google Scholar

7. Whitley, HP, Yong, EV, Rasinen, C. Selecting an A1C point-of-care instrument. Diabetes Spectr 2015;28:201–8. https://doi.org/10.2337/diaspect.28.3.201.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

8. Lenters-Westra, E, Slingerland, RJ. Six of eight hemoglobin A1c point-of-care instruments do not meet the general accepted analytical performance criteria. Clin Chem 2010;56:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2009.130641.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Lenters-Westra, E, Slingerland, RJ. Three of 7 hemoglobin A1c point-of-care instruments do not meet generally accepted analytical performance criteria. Clin Chem 2014;60:1062–72. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2014.224311.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Nielsen, AA, Petersen, PH, Green, A, Christensen, C, Christensen, H, Brandslund, I. Changing from glucose to HbA1c for diabetes diagnosis: predictive values of one test and importance of analytical bias and imprecision. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:1069–77. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2013-0337.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Hirst, JA, McLellan, JH, Price, CP, English, E, Feakins, BG, Stevens, RJ, et al.. Performance of point-of-care HbA1c test devices: implications for use in clinical practice - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:167–80. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0303.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Fraser, CG. Reference change values. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:807–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2011.733.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Kallner, A, Theodorsson, E. Repeatability imprecision from analysis of duplicates of patient samples and control materials. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2020;80:210–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2019.1710243.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Type 2 diabetes in adults: management (NG28). Dec 2020 update; 2015.Search in Google Scholar

15. American Diabetes Association (ADA). 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of medical care in diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44:S15–33. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S002.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Scientific Committee on Quality Assurance (VUK). Analysekvalitetskrav til HbA1c ved brug til diagnostik og monitorering af diabetes. Available from: https://dskb.dk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/VUK-HbA1c.pdf [Accessed 15 Dec 2020].Search in Google Scholar

17. Sacks, DB, Arnold, M, Bakris, GL, Bruns, DE, Horvath, AR, Kirkman, MS, et al.. Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2011;34:e61–99. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc11-9998.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

18. Shephard, M, Shephard, A, McAteer, B, Regnier, T, Barancek, K. Results from 15 years of quality surveillance for a National Indigenous Point-of-Care Testing Program for diabetes. Clin Biochem 2017;50:1159–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.07.007.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Lenters-Westra, E, Slingerland, RJ. Hemoglobin A1c point-of-care assays; a new world with a lot of consequences!. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2009;3:418–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/193229680900300303.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

20. Trautsch, M, Nickerson-Troy, J, Moore, R, Ingari, E, Meretsky, N, Lewis, L, et al.. Clinical effects of calibration of CoaguChek XS PT Test Strips on Anticoagulation Management Services. J Am Pharm Assoc 2020;60:72–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2019.09.013.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Stavelin, A, Riksheim, BO, Christensen, NG, Sandberg, S. The importance of reagent lot registration in external quality assurance/proficiency testing schemes. Clin Chem 2016;62:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2015.247585.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

22. Kenealy, T, Herd, G, Musaad, S, Wells, S. HbA1c screening in the community: lessons for safety and quality management of a point of care programme. Prim Care Diabetes 2019;13:170–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2018.11.008.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). EP26-A - user evaluation of between-reagent lot variation; Approved Guideline; Sep 2013.Search in Google Scholar

24. Huang, Y, Campbell, E, Colbourne, B, Power, J, Randell, E. User competency is still a major factor affecting analytical performance of glucose meters in patient service. Clin Biochem 2019;63:66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.11.008.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. American Diabetes, A. 6. Glycemic targets: standards of medical care in diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44:S73–84. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-s006.Search in Google Scholar

26. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). EP05-A3 - evaluation of precision of quantitative measurement procedures; Oct 2014.Search in Google Scholar

27. Weykamp, C, John, G, Gillery, P, English, E, Ji, L, Lenters-Westra, E, et al.. Investigation of 2 models to set and evaluate quality targets for hb a1c: biological variation and sigma-metrics. Clin Chem 2015;61:752–9. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2014.235333.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central


Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-0720).


Received: 2021-06-21
Accepted: 2021-08-25
Published Online: 2021-09-06
Published in Print: 2022-01-26

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Scroll Up Arrow