Performance of HbA1c for classifying diabetes and diagnostic threshold for diabetes among the Mexican American border community

Objective. In 2009, the International Expert Committee recommended the use of HbA1c test for diagnosis of diabetes. Although it has been recommended for the diagnosis of diabetes, its precise test performance among Mexican Americans is uncertain. A strong “gold standard” would rely on repeated blood glucose measurement on different days, which is the recommended method for diagnosing diabetes in clinical practice. Our objective was to assess test performance of HbA1c in detecting diabetes and pre-diabetes against repeated fasting blood glucose measurement for the Mexican American population living in United States-Mexico border. Moreover, we wanted to find out a specific and precise threshold value of HbA1c for Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and pre-diabetes for this high-risk population which might assist in better diagnosis and better management of patient diabetes. ^ Research design and methods. We used CCHC dataset for our study. In 2004, the Cameron County Hispanic Cohort (CCHC), now numbering 2,574, was established drawn from randomly selected households on the basis of 2000 Census tract data. The CCHC study randomly selected a subset of people (aged 18-64 years) in CCHC cohort households to determine the influence of SES on diabetes and obesity. Among the participants in Cohort-2000, 67.15% are female; all are Hispanic. ^ Individuals were defined as having diabetes mellitus (Fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≥ 126 mg/dL or pre-diabetes (100 ≤ FPG < 126 mg/dL). HbA1c test performance was evaluated using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. Moreover, change-point models were used to determine HbA1c thresholds compatible with FPG thresholds for diabetes and pre-diabetes. ^ Results. When assessing Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) is used to detect diabetes, the sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 6.5% was 75% and 87% respectively (area under the curve 0.895). Additionally, when assessing FPG to detect pre-diabetes, the sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 6.0% (ADA recommended threshold) was 18% and 90% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 5.7% (International Expert Committee recommended threshold) for detecting pre-diabetes was 31% and 78% respectively. ROC analyses suggest HbA1c as a sound predictor of diabetes mellitus (area under the curve 0.895) but a poorer predictor for pre-diabetes (area under the curve 0.632). ^ Conclusions. Our data support the current recommendations for use of HbA1c in the diagnosis of diabetes for the Mexican American population as it has shown reasonable sensitivity, specificity and accuracy against repeated FPG measures. However, use of HbA1c may be premature for detecting pre-diabetes in this specific population because of the poor sensitivity with FPG. It might be the case that HbA1c is differentiating the cases more effectively who are at risk of developing diabetes. Following these pre-diabetic individuals for a longer-term for the detection of incident diabetes may lead to more confirmatory result.^

A comparison of adherence with minocycline treatment in Parkinson's disease and rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials

Background: Little is known about the effects on patient adherence when the same study drug is administered in the same dose in two populations with two different diseases in two different clinical trials. The Minocycline in Rheumatoid Arthritis (MIRA) trial and the NIH Exploratory Trials in Parkinson's disease (NET-PD) Futility Study I provide a unique opportunity to do the above and to compare methods measuring adherence. This study may increase understanding of the influence of disease and adverse events on patient adherence and will provide insights to investigators selecting adherence assessment methods in clinical trials of minocycline and other drugs in future.^ Methods: Minocycline adherence by pill count and the effect of adverse events was compared in the MIRA and NET-PD FS1 trials using multivariable linear regression. Within the MIRA trial, agreement between assay and pill count was compared. The association of adverse events with assay adherence was examined using multivariable logistic regression.^ Results: Adherence derived from pill count in the MIRA and NET-PD FS1 trials did not differ significantly. Adverse events potentially related to minocycline did not appear useful to predict minocycline adherence. In the MIRA trial, adherence measured by pill count appears higher than adherence measured by assay. Agreement between pill count and assay was poor (kappa statistic = 0.25).^ Limitations: Trial and disease are completely confounded and hence the independent effect of disease on adherence to minocycline treatment cannot be studied.^ Conclusion: Simple pill count may be preferred over assay in the minocycline clinical trials to measure adherence. Assays may be less sensitive in a clinical setting where appointments are not scheduled in relation to medication administration time, given assays depend on many pharmacokinetic and instrument-related factors. However, pill count can be manipulated by the patient. Another study suggested that self-report method is more sensitive than pill count method in differentiating adherence from non-adherence. An effect of medication-related adverse events on adherence could not be detected.^