Publication | Closed Access
Clinical validation of a second-generation fructosamine assay
62
Citations
14
References
1991
Year
Metabolic SyndromeDiabetes ManagementMedicineInsulin ManagementBioanalysisDiabetesDrug TestBlood Glucose MonitoringPharmacotherapyDiabetes MellitusClinical ChemistryClinical ValidationRoche DiagnosticsLaboratory MedicineIntensive Intervention ProgramSerum Fructosamine AssayDrug Discovery
The serum fructosamine assay, used to monitor short-term clinical glycemic control, reportedly has several technical drawbacks. However, technical improvements have resulted in a new second-generation assay of fructosamine. We evaluated this second-generation assay (from Roche Diagnostics) in 529 nondiabetic and diabetic patients and found a highly significant correlation with results of the first-generation assay (r = 0.91, P less than 0.001). Use of the second-generation assay with samples from patients classified on the basis of glycemic control according to their glycohemoglobin (GHb) values, enabled us to discriminate between the nondiabetics, diabetics with "good/moderate" control (i.e., GHb less than 10%), and diabetics with "poor" control (GHb greater than or equal to 10%). We evaluated the validity of the second-generation assay to assess short-term glycemic control in 23 non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients who participated for 10 weeks in an intensive intervention program designed to rapidly normalize the clinical glycemic profile. Results correlated significantly with the one-week average capillary blood glucose concentration (CBG) and with the three-week average CBG in all 23 patients. In addition, the second-generation fructosamine assay results demonstrated a significant decrease at each week of study, as did the average CBG. Results of the first- and second-generation assays correlated significantly at each week of study. GHb correlated significantly with both the second- (r = 0.78, P less than 0.001) and first-generation fructosamine assay results (r = 0.77, P less than 0.001) for the baseline blood samples of the intervention study, but this correlation decreased (to r = 0.35, P = 0.09 and r = 0.34, P = 0.09, respectively) by the conclusion of the study.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1