RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Glycated albumin is a glycemic marker useful in short-term monitoring and in situations when a glycated hemoglobin test is not reliable. This study aims to evaluate glycated albumin levels and its associated factors in normoglycemic adults from Southern Brazil. METHOD: 136 individuals, without diabetes or pre-diabetes, were included in this cross-sectional study. Levels of glycated albumin, glycated hemoglobin, and other biochemical markers were measured. RESULTS: Glycated albumin levels ranged from 11.1% to 17.5% (2.5th and 97.5th percentiles). Glycated albumin/glycated hemoglobin ratio was 2.8±0.2. Glycated albumin did not differ according to gender and age groups. However, in overweight individuals, levels of glycated albumin and glycated albumin/glycated hemoglobin ratio were lower and weakly and negatively correlated with body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: Glycated albumin levels in Brazilians were similar to those previously described in other populations. Glycated albumin seems to be irrespective of gender or age, but weakly correlated with weight. These aspects should be taken into account in the interpretation of glycated albumin results.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Studies in the general population have advocated glycated albumin (GA) as a useful alternative to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) under conditions wherein the latter does not reflect glycaemic status accurately. There are few studies in other populations, especially in pregnant women. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of GA in the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This diagnostic test accuracy study was performed in 149 Brazilian women at 24-28 weeks of gestation referred for an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in a tertiary university hospital. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to access the performance of GA and HbA1c in the diagnosis of GDM by the reference OGTT. RESULTS: GDM by OGTT (IADPSG criteria) was detected in 18.8% of participants. According to ROC analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) for GA was 0.531 (95% CI: 0.405-0.658, p = 0.065) lower than that for HbA1c [0.743 (95% CI: 0.636-0.849; p ≤ 0.001] for the detection of GDM (p = 0.004). The equilibrium cut-off value for GA was 12.6%; sensitivity and specificity in this cut-off point were 53.6% and 54.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: GA at 24-28 weeks of gestation does not have ability to correctly discriminate those with and without GDM. In summary, the lack of sensitivity found in our results do not support the solely use of GA in the diagnosis of GDM.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is no study evaluating the use of glycated albumin (GA) for the detection of post-transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) in kidney transplant recipients. We evaluated the overall accuracy of GA at four months after kidney transplantation. METHODS: Diagnostic test accuracy study including 134 kidney transplant recipients without pre-existing diabetes. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was used to estimate sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and area under the curve (AUC) for GA, considering oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and/or glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as reference criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were diagnosed with PTDM by OGTT and/or HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. GA showed moderate accuracy to detect PTDM [AUC 0.673 (95% CI 0.557-0.789, p < 0.01)]. The use of OGTT and/or HbA1c ≥ 6.2% increased the number of PTDM cases from 33 to 38, and AUC was 0.713 (95% CI 0.608-0.819, p < 0.01). GA ≥ 17% showed specificity close to 90% when OGTT and/or HbA1c ≥ 6.5% were used as reference tests. CONCLUSIONS: GA showed low diagnostic accuracy for the detection of PTDM at the fourth month after transplantation. The use of a single GA point is not enough for the screening and diagnosis of PTDM; however, GA ≥ 17% presented high specificity to rule in the disease after kidney transplantation.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency anaemia has been associated with higher HbA1c levels. However, during and after iron supplementation there is a decrease in HbA1c results, causing a misinterpretation. Our aim was to analyse the effect of iron supplementation on HbA1c levels in nondiabetic pregnant women with and without anaemia. METHODS: Pregnant women in prenatal care, without gestational diabetes (GDM) or previous diabetes mellitus (DM) that performed an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in the third trimester of pregnancy were invited to participate. Clinical and laboratorial analyses were performed, including standardized questionnaire, OGTT, full blood count and HbA1c. RESULTS: A total of 231 pregnant women without DM or GDM were included in the study. According to anaemia and/or iron supplementation, we divided women in: no iron and no anaemia - Group 1 (N=86); no iron and with anaemia - Group 2 (N=29); iron and no anaemia - Group 3 (N=87); iron and anaemia - Group 4 (N=29). There was statistically a significant, although no clinically relevant, difference between HbA1c values in pregnant women in Groups 1 and 4 [5.1±0.4% (32±4.4mmol/mol) and 4.8±0.3% (29±3.3mmol/mol), P<0.01; respectively]. HbA1c values in pregnant women in Groups 1, 2 and 3 were similar, independently of anaemia [5.1±0.4% (32±4.4mmol/mol); 5.0±0.4% (31±4.4mmol/mol) and 5.0±0.4% (31±4.4mmol/mol); p>0.05; respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Iron supplementation during pregnancy does not affect HbA1c levels and has no clinical impact in the final interpretation of results in the absence of anaemia or presence of mild anaemia. Interpreting HbA1c results in pregnant women during iron therapy and with moderate or severe anaemia still requires caution.

Assuntos