Tag Archives: hgbA1c

When Is the Hemoglobin A1c Test Misleading?

From 97 to 90 mg/dl

Not the only way to assess glucose control

Can you believe I’ve had patients show me a week’s worth of home glucose tests showing great numbers, tell me they’ve been that good for the last three months, and then I find a sky high hemoglobin A1c test? How can that be? Sometimes the patient, usually a young one, is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. But there are other potential explanations.

Hemglobin A1c (or HgbA1c) is a standard measure of glucose control, or lack thereof, over the three months preceding the blood test.

It’s also used for diagnosis of diabetes and prediabetes. Levels between 5.7 and 6.4% suggest prediabetes. Levels of 6.5% of higher indicate diabetes.

Hemoglobin is the oxygen-carrying protein in red blood cells. HgbA1c tells us if many sugar molecules are stuck to the hemoglobin, a process called glycosylation. HgbA1c is sometimes referred to as glycated hemoglobin. About half of the HgbA1c value is determined by blood sugar levels in the month before the blood draw.

But the HgbA1c test isn’t always an accurate reflection of blood sugar levels.

Many factors unrelated to serum glucose (sugar) levels can alter the HgbA1c value. Here they are:

Pregnancy

Pregnant women tend to have lower than average HgbA1c.

Certain Types of Anemia

Iron-deficiency anemia may yield falsely low or high HgbA1c, depending on whether it’s being treated or not.

Acute bleeding and hemolytic anemia give falsely low HbA1c values.

The unifying feature here is that young red blood cells, called reticulocytes, take some time to get glycosylated.

Lack of a Spleen 

HgbA1c will be falsely high. Your spleen removes old red blood cells. Not having a spleen increases the life span of red blood cells, so they can accumulate more glucose molecules.

Various Hemoglobin Types or Congenital Abnormalities

Hemoglobin S and hemoglobin C may lead to deceptively low HgbA1c. Hemoglobin F tends to overestimate.

Blood Transfusions

Recent red blood cell transfusions will lower the HgbA1c if it was elevated to begin with, especially if lots of blood is transfused.

Renal Failure

It’s complicated; talk to your kidney specialist.

Chronic Disease

HgbA1c values can be unreliable in chronic alcoholism, chronic narcotic users, severely high triglyceride or bilirubin levels, kidney failure, vitamin and mineral deficiencies (particularly the vitamins and minerals needed to make red blood cells).

Race

Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks tend to have higher HgbA1c’s than Whites who have the same blood sugar levels. The difference is about 0.3% (absolute, not relative.

Wild Glycemic Excursions

What’s this? You might call it labile diabetes: dramatic swings between sugars too low and way too high. For example, this patient may have daily glucose swings between 40 and 210 mg/dl (2.2  and 11.7 mmol/l). His HgbA1c may turn out near normal or acceptable, but many experts worry that the wild oscillations may contribute to diabetic microvascular complications like eye and kidney disease.

Are There Alternatives to HgbA1c?

Yes. If you think the HgbA1c test is inaccurate, consider other tests such as continuous glucose monitoring, fructosamine, glycated albumin, 1,5-anhydroglucitol, and more frequent home glucose monitoring.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference: Bazerbachi, F., et al. Is hemoglobin A1c an accurate measure of glycemic control in all diabetic patients? Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, vol. 81, #3, March 2014: 146-149

Comments Off on When Is the Hemoglobin A1c Test Misleading?

Filed under Uncategorized

Hemoglobin A1c Test May Miss Many Cases of Diabetes

…according to a report at MedPageToday. If there’s any doubt about a new case of diabetes, consider a fasting blood sugar test or glucose tolerance test.

Comments Off on Hemoglobin A1c Test May Miss Many Cases of Diabetes

Filed under Uncategorized

How Well Should Diabetes Be Controlled?

Researchers in the U.K. suggest that a hemoglobin A1c of 7.5% may be optimal in terms of longevity for type 2 diabetics treated with drugs, according to a study published recently in The Lancet.

Hemoglobin A1c (HgbA1c) is a blood test widely used as a gauge of blood sugar control, reflecting average blood sugars over the previous three months.  The American Diabetes Association recommends a HgbA1c goal of 7% or less.  The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommends 6.5% or less.  Dr. Richard K. Bernstein, a diabetologist and himself a type 1 diabetic, recommends HgbA1c’s as near normal as possible (about 5%). 

Many physicians believe that keeping blood sugar levels as close to normal as possible—often referred to as “tight control”— will help prevent certain diabetes complications such as blindness, kidney failure, and nerve damage.  We have good supportive evidence.

We assume tight control would also help prevent premature death from heart attacks and strokes, too.  Several recent studies—the ACCORD and ADVANCE trials—call this into question, however.  The ACCORD trial, for example, achieved near-normal glucose control with multiple medication options, yet found that the effort was linked to increased death rates from cardiovascular disease and from any cause (all-cause mortality).

The scariest thing about tight control is hypoglycemia, which can kill you quickly, for example,  if you’re operating dangerous machinery (e.g., driving), scuba-diving, or rock-climbing.

U.K. researchers recently reviewed records of diabetics treated either with 1) two oral medications (usually metformin and a sulfonylurea), or 2) a regimen containing insulin.  Each group had over 20,000 subjects.  They found that risk of death for those with an average HgbA1c of 6.4% (the lowest blood sugar levels in this study) was 52% higher than those with HgbA1c of 7.5%.  Those with the highest blood sugar levels over time—HgbA1c over 10% if I recall correctly—had the highest risk of death.  In general, those taking insulin had higher rates of death than those on pills.

It’s extremely difficult to interpret studies like this.  There are myriad ways to treat diabetes.  We have 10 classes of drugs for treatment of diabetes: this study looked at three.  There are at least three types of “diabetic diet” in common use: low-fat/high-carb, low-carb, and just regular eating, which depends on where you live.  Exercise, too, plays a role in treatment and longevity. 

With all these variables, should we put much stock in a study that looks at longevity from the perspective of just two therapeutic regimens?  How well would a football team do with just two plays in its play-book?

You’d think we would have a definite answer to the “tight versus loose control” issue by 2010.  We don’t.  It’s still very appealing to me to think that, if done right, tight control would yield the better outcomes.  Problem is, we don’t always know what’s right. 

One thing is clear: Having a HgbA1c of 7.5% is better than 10% in terms of health and longevity. 

But is 7.5% really better than 6.5 or 5.5 or 5.0% for a particular individual on a particular treatment program?  Probably not.  That’s why the ADA and AACE emphasize that treatment programs be tailored to the individual patient.        

Maybe controlling blood sugar levels is like controlling high blood pressure.  The ideal may be 120/80, but you gain very little, if any, by reducing high blood pressure below 140/90 (130/85 for diabetics).  HgbA1c of 5.0% may be ideal, but not necessary.

Steve Parker, M.D. 

References:

Currie, Craig, et al.  Survival as a function of HgA1c in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study.  The Lancet, January 27, 2010.  Early online publication   doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61969-3

Dluhy, Robert and McMahon, Graham.  Intensive glycemic control in the ACCORD and ADVANCE trials.  New England Journal of Medicine, 358 (2008):2630-2633.

1 Comment

Filed under Diabetes Complications, Drugs for Diabetes