Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2018; 143(21): 1549-1555
DOI: 10.1055/a-0673-2156
Review
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Fallstricke bei der Diabetesdiagnostik: Wird zu lax mit Laborwerten umgegangen?

Pitfalls in the Diagnosis of Diabetes: Are we too Lax with Laboratory Parameters?
Rüdiger Landgraf
1   Deutsche Diabetes Stiftung, München
,
Matthias Nauck
2   Institut für Klinische Chemie und Laboratoriumsmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald
,
Guido Freckmann
3   Institut für Diabetes-Technologie, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm
,
Ulrich A. Müller
4   Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena
,
Lutz Heinemann
5   Science Consulting in Diabetes GmbH, Neuss
,
Monika Kellerer
6   Zentrum für Innere Medizin I, Marienhospital Stuttgart, Stuttgart
,
Dirk Müller-Wieland
7   Medizinische Klinik I, RWTH-Aachen
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 September 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Diabetesdiagnose zeigt viele präanalytische und analytische Probleme. Nüchtern-Glukose (NG), orale Glukosetoleranztest (oGTT) und HbA1c haben Vor- und Nachteile und sind nicht gleichwertig in ihrer diagnostischen Aussagekraft. Der oGTT ist der empfindlichste Test, die Reproduzierbarkeit ist relativ niedrig (VK ± 15 %). Die NG entdeckt maximal 70 – 80 % der Patienten mit einem manifesten Diabetes. Die Glukose-Messung wird durch unsachgemäße Blutabnahme, intraindividuelle Glukose-Schwankungen, Fastendauer und Fehler beim oGTT verfälscht. HbA1c ist trotz IFCC-Standardisierung bei erlaubter Abweichung von ± 18 % in Ringversuchen und dem Einsatz von nicht kommutablem Ringversuchsmaterial schlecht überprüfbar. HbA1c-Analyse zeigt viele Interferenzen und ist nur begrenzt zur Diabetesdiagnose geeignet. Der Schwellenwert von HbA1c von ≥ 6,5 % (≥ 48 mmol/mol Hb) beruht nicht auf harter Evidenz. Der Aufwand bei der Diagnose (NG und/oder oGTT+HbA1c) ist bei den sich daraus ergebenden klinischen Konsequenzen minimal invasiv, zumutbar, preiswert und verhindert eine Über- und Unterdiagnostik.

Abstract

The diagnosis of diabetes is associated with pre-analytical and analytical problems. Fasting glucose (FG), oral glucose tolerance test (oGTT) and HbA1c have advantages and shortcomings and have no equal diagnostic validity. oGTT is the most sensitive test, but its reproducibility is rather poor (CV± 15 %). FG detects only 70 – 80 % of overt diabetes. FG is falsified by inappropriate blood sampling, intra-individual fluctuations and mistakes with the oGTT. HbA1c despite IFC- standardization, but with a tolerable coefficient of variation of ± 18 % in round robin tests and use of not commutable control material is not easy to interpret. HbA1c analysis shows also interferences and is therefore of limited diagnostic value. Its threshold value of ≥ 6.5 % (≥ 48 mmol/mol Hb) is based on consensus and not on evidence. The diagnostic effort (FG and/or oGTT+HbA1c) with serious consequences is minimal invasive, reasonable and cheap. It prevents over- and underdiagnosis.

Schlüsselwörter

Diabetesdiagnose - (prä)-analytische Probleme - Plasmaglukose - HbA1c - oGTT

Key words

diabetes diagnosis - (pre)-analytic problems - plasma glucose - HbA1c - oGTT
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Schulze M. Dife – Deutscher Diabetes-Risiko-Test (DRT). Diabetologie 2017; 12 (02) S264-S267
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schwarz P. FINDRISK-Test. Diabetologie 2017; 12 (02) S268-S270
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 WHO. Definition and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and intermediate hyperglycemia. Report of a WHO/IDF Consultation. World Health Organization; 2006. ; ISBN 978 92 4 1594936
    Google Scholar
  • 4 International Diabetes Federation. IDF clinical practice recommendations for managing type 2 diabetes in primary care. 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 American Diabetes Association. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care 2018; 41 (01) S13-S27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 The International Expert Committee. International Expert Committee Report on the Role of the A1C Assay in the Diagnosis of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009; 32 (07) 1327-1334
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Nauck M, Petermann A, Müller-Wieland D. et al. Definition, Klassifikation und Diagnostik des Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetologie 2017; 12 (02) S94-S100
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kerner W, Freckmann G, Müller UA. et al. Positionspapier der Kommission für Labordiagnostik in der Diabetologie der DGKL und der DDG. Diabetologie 2015; 10: 329-333
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Heinemann L, Kaiser P, Freckmann G. et al. HbA1c-Messung in Deutschland: Ist die Qualität ausreichend für Verlaufskontrolle und Diagnose? Positionspapier der Kommission für Labordiagnostik in der Diabetologie der DGKL und der DDG. Diabetologie 2018; 13: 46-53
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sacks DB. A1C versus glucose testing. A comparison. Diabetes Care 2011; 34: 518-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kowall B, Rathmann W, Landgraf R. Is HbA1c a valid and feasible tool for the diagnosis of diabetes?. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011; 93: 314-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dagogo-Jack S. Pitfalls in the use of HbA1c as a diagnostic test: the ethnic conundrum. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2010; 6: 589-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bonora E, Tuomiletho J. The pros and cons of diagnosing diabetes with A1C. Diabetes Care 2011; 34 (02) S184-S190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Larsson-Cohn U. Differences between capillary and venous blood glucose during oral glucose tolerance tests. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1976; 36: 805-808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Irjala K, Koskinen P, Näntö V. et al. Interpretation of oral glucose tolerance test: Capillary-venous difference in blood glucose and the effect of analytical method. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1986; 46: 307-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bundesärztekammer. Neufassung der „Richtlinie der Bundesärztekammer zur Qualitätssicherung laboratoriumsmedizinischer Untersuchungen – Rili-BÄK. Dtsch Ärztebl 2014; 111 (38) A1583-A1618
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Selvin E, Crainiceanu CM, Brancati FL. et al. Short-term variability in measures of glycemia and implications for the classification of diabetes. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167 (14) 1545-1551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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: 394-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 The DECODE-study group on behalf of the European Diabetes Epidemiology Group. Is fasting glucose sufficient to define diabetes? Epidemiological data from 20 European studies. Diabetologia 1999; 42: 647-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 www.deutsche-diabetes-gesellschaft.de/fileadmin/Redakteur/Stellungnahmen/2017/DDG_Stellungnahme_MD.pdf
    PubMed
  • 21 Köbberling J, Kerlin A, Creutzfeldt W. The reproducibility of the oral glucose tolerance test over long (5 years) and short periods (1 week). Klin Wochenschr 1980; 58: 527-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ko GTC, Chan JCN, Woo J. et al. The reproducibility and usefulness of the oral glucose tolerance test in screening for diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors. Ann Clin Biochem 1998; 35: 62-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gordon BA, Fraser SF, Bird SR. et al. Reproducibility of multiple repeated oral glucose tolerance tests. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011; 94: e78-e82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ye Y, Xie H, Zhao X. et al. The oral glucose tolerance test for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in patients during acute coronary syndrome hospitalization: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. Cardiovascular Diabetology 2012; 11: 155-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Van de Velde FP, Dierickx A, Depypere H. Reproducibility and least significant differences of oral glucose tolerance test-derived parameters in a postmenopausal population without diabetes. Diabetes & Metabolism 2017; 43: 484-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chai JH, Ma S, Heng D. Impact of analytical and biological variations on classification of diabetes using fasting plasma glucose, oral glucose tolerance test and HbA1c. Sci Rep 2017; 7 (01) 13721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Menke A, Rust KF, Cowie CC. Diabetes based on 2-h plasma glucose among those classified as having prediabetes based on fasting plasma glucose or A1c. Diab Vasc Dis Res 2018; 15 (01) 46-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cowie CC, Rust KF, Byrd-Holt DD. et al. Prevalence of diabetes and high risk for diabetes using A1c Criteria in the U.S. population in 1988–2006. Diabetes Care 2010; 33: 562-568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 van 't Riet E, Alssema M, Rijkelijkhuizen JM. et al. Relationship between A1C and glucose levels in the general dutch population. The New Hoorn Study. Diabetes Care 2010; 33 (01) 61-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fajans SS, Herman WH, Oral EA. Insufficient sensitivity of hemoglobin A1C determination in diagnosis or screening of early diabetic states. Metabolism Clin Exp 2011; 60: 86-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Gyberg V, De Bacquer D, Kotseva K. et al. behalf of EUROASPIRE IV Investigators. Screening for dysglycaemia in patients with coronary artery disease as reflected by fasting glucose, oral glucose tolerance test, and HbA1c: a report from EUROASPIRE IV—a survey from the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2015; 36: 1171-1177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Shahim B, Gyberg V, De Bacquer D. et al. Undetected dysglycaemia common in primary care patients treated for hypertension and/or dyslipidaemia: on the need for a screening strategy in clinical practice. A report from EUROASPIRE IV a registry from the Euro Observational Research Programme of the European Society of Cardiology. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2018; 17: 21-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Roth J, Müller N, Lehmann T. et al. Comparison of HbA1c measurements using 3 methods in 75 patients referred to one outpatient department. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2018; 126 (01) 23-26
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Roth J, Müller N, Lehmann T. et al. HbA1c and age in non-diabetic subjects: An ignored association?. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2016; 124 (10) 637-642
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Colagiuri S, Lee CM, Wong TY. et al. for the DETECT-2 Collaboration Writing Group. Glycemic thresholds for diabetes-specific retinopathy: implications for diagnostic criteria for diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011; 34 (01) 145-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Peter A, Fritsche A, Stefan N. et al. Diagnostic value of hemoglobin A1c for type 2 diabetes mellitus in a population at risk. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2011; 119 (04) 234-237
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Selvin E, Steffes MW, Gregg E. Performance of A1C for the classification and prediction of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011; 34: 84-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kowall B, Rathmann W. HbA1c for diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Is there an optimal cut point to assess high risk of diabetes complications, and how well does the 6.5% cutoff perform?. Diabetes, Metabolic Syndr Obesity: Targets and Therapy 2013; 6: 477-491
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Hoyer A, Rathmann W, Kuss O. Utility of HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose for screening of Type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of full ROC curves. Diabet Med 2018; 35: 317-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Hellgren M, Steiner KH, Bennet L. Haemoglobin A1c as a screening tool for type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in populations of Swedish and Middle-East ancestry. Primary Care Diabetes 2017; 11: 337-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar