Clinical question
Is hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing appropriate for screening and diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Evidence
-
Agreement between HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT) is poor:
-
Some studies find HbA1c (≥ 6.5%) would diagnose less diabetes than OGTT1,5,6 (eg, HbA1c missed 60% of the cases OGTT diagnosed6); some find HbA1c (≥ 6.5%) would diagnose more diabetes than OGTT2-5 (eg, OGTT missed 35% of the cases HbA1c diagnosed4).
-
In predicting outcomes of diabetes, HbA1c
-
Using a diagnostic cutoff of HbA1c ≥ 6.5%:
Context
-
Although FPG has been the preferred diagnostic test for diabetes for years, it requires patient compliance with fasting and has high intraindividual variability.7,16
-
HbA1c is more expensive and not reliable in certain conditions (eg, hemoglobinopathies),19 but does not require fasting and has less intraindividual variability than FPG.7
-
Recent American,20 WHO,21 and Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC)22 recommendations include HbA1c of ≥ 6.5% for screening and diagnosis.
Bottom line
An HbA1c cutoff of ≥ 6.5% can be used to screen for and diagnose type 2 diabetes. Controversy persists around appropriate cutoffs and agreement with other tests.
Implementation
There is no evidence that screening adults at low or moderate risk of diabetes will improve outcomes; low-quality evidence suggests that screening high-risk adults could reduce complications.22 The CTFPHC recently published new guidance on screening for diabetes, identifying HbA1c as the preferred test. The CTFPHC recommends using a validated risk calculator (preferably FINDRISC23) to identify adults at high or very high risk. High-risk adults should be screened with HbA1c every 3 to 5 years; those at very high risk should be screened annually. FINDRISC23 requires consideration of diet, exercise, and body weight, so using these risk calculators offers opportunities to discuss other risk factors.
Notes
Tools for Practice articles in Canadian Family Physician (CFP) are adapted from articles published on the Alberta College of Family Physicians (ACFP) website, summarizing medical evidence with a focus on topical issues and practice-modifying information. The ACFP summaries and the series in CFP are coordinated by Dr G. Michael Allan, and the summaries are co-authored by at least 1 practising family physician and are peer reviewed. Feedback is welcome and can be sent to toolsforpractice{at}cfpc.ca. Archived articles are available on the ACFP website: www.acfp.ca.
Footnotes
-
The opinions expressed in this Tools for Practice article are those of the authors and do not necessarily mirror the perspective and policy of the Alberta College of Family Physicians.
- Copyright © the College of Family Physicians of Canada