Hom F G, Ettinger B, Lin M J
Department of Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Medical Offices, Fremont, CA 94538-2398, USA.
Acta Diabetol. 1998 Apr;35(1):48-51. doi: 10.1007/s005920050100.
In diabetic patients, measurement of glycohemoglobin (HbA1C) is widely accepted as the standard method for determining long-term glycemic control. Another test, the serum fructosamine test, has been suggested as a less costly alternative. To compare these two tests, we evaluated how well each correlated with fasting blood glucose and how well each could predict the degree of glycemic control perceived by treating physicians. Among 222 diabetic subjects, fructosamine (r=0.74) and fructosamine corrected for serum albumin (c-fructosamine) (r=0.79) correlated better with fasting blood glucose than did HbA1C (r=0.68) (P<0.05). Among 450 diabetic subjects, fructosamine, c-fructosamine, and HbA1C showed similar error rates (23%-26%) when discriminating between subjects who had either poor vs not-poor control or poor-to-fair versus good-to-excellent control. However, receiver operating characteristic curves for these tests indicated that HbA1C was the best discriminator because it showed a 9% to 10% greater area under the curve (P<0.05).
在糖尿病患者中,糖化血红蛋白(HbA1C)测量作为确定长期血糖控制的标准方法已被广泛接受。另一种检测方法,即血清果糖胺检测,被认为是一种成本较低的替代方法。为比较这两种检测方法,我们评估了它们与空腹血糖的相关性以及它们预测治疗医生所感知的血糖控制程度的能力。在222名糖尿病受试者中,果糖胺(r = 0.74)和校正血清白蛋白后的果糖胺(c-果糖胺)(r = 0.79)与空腹血糖的相关性比HbA1C(r = 0.68)更好(P<0.05)。在450名糖尿病受试者中,当区分控制不佳与控制尚可或控制差至一般与控制良好至优秀的受试者时,果糖胺、c-果糖胺和HbA1C的错误率相似(23% - 26%)。然而,这些检测方法的受试者工作特征曲线表明,HbA1C是最佳的鉴别指标,因为它的曲线下面积大9%至10%(P<0.05)。