Cardiovascular Risk. Profile of Diabetic. Subjects Discordantly. Classified by. Diagnostic Criteria. Based on Glycated. Hemoglobin and Oral. Glucose Tolerance.
O N L I N E
L E T T E R S
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response to Comment on: Boronat et al. Differences in Cardiovascular Risk Profile of Diabetic Subjects Discordantly Classified by Diagnostic Criteria Based on Glycated Hemoglobin and Oral Glucose Tolerance Test. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2671– 2673
W
e appreciate the efforts of Kramer and Araneta (1) to investigate whether our findings are reproducible in the Rancho Bernardo cohort. In apparent contrast to our results (2), they observed that subjects with diabetic oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) but A1C ,6.5% displayed a more unfavorable cardiovascular risk profile than subjects with A1C $6.5% (1). However, as noted by the authors, groups used for comparison in both studies were not homogeneous. All analyzed subjects with A1C $6.5% in the Rancho Bernardo study had nondiabetic OGTT, whereas
e60
DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 34, MAY 2011
in our study 86% of subjects with A1C $6.5% also fulfilled criteria of diabetes based on plasma glucose. Probably, the cardiovascular risk profile is worse among subjects meeting both criteria of diabetes than among those that only fulfill the A1C-based criterion. However, according to the greatest studies performed in Western populations (3), the 6.5% cut-off point for A1C-based diagnosis of diabetes is highly specific, i.e., most individuals with A1C $6.5% also are diagnosed with diabetes following criteria based on plasma glucose. In this regard, the Rancho Bernardo study, in which 85% of participants with A1C $6.5% were classified as nondiabetic by OGTT (4), seems to be an exception. The authors attribute these findings to the advanced age of the studied population. Methodological issues related to the laboratory assay of A1C might also have contributed to overdiagnosis of diabetes in the Rancho Bernardo study. In this survey, A1C was assayed between 1984 and 1987, before the standardization of A1C measurement. As far as we know, the authors have not communicated alignment of their A1C values to the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) assay. The diagnostic cutoff point of 6.5% for the A1C test only should be applied using a method that is standardized or traceable to the DCCT reference. Therefore, if this was not the case, interpretation of the characteristics of subjects diagnosed of diabetes by A1C test in the Rancho Bernardo study should be taken with caution. MAURO BORONAT, MD, PHD FRANCISCO J. NÓVOA, MD, PHD
From the Section of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Universitario Insular, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, and the Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. Corresponding author: Mauro Boronat, mborcor@ yahoo.es. DOI: 10.2337/dc11-0350 © 2011 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.
Acknowledgments—No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported. c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
References 1. Kramer CK, Araneta MR. Comment on: Boronat et al. Differences in cardiovascular risk profile of diabetic subjects discordantly classified by diagnostic criteria based on glycated hemoglobin and oral glucose tolerance test. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2671– 2673 (Letter). Diabetes Care 2011;34:e59. DOI: 10.2337/dc11-0232 2. Boronat M, Saavedra P, López-Ríos L, Riaño M, Wägner AM, Nóvoa FJ. Differences in cardiovascular risk profile of diabetic subjects discordantly classified by diagnostic criteria based on glycated hemoglobin and oral glucose tolerance test. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2671–2673 3. Olson DE, Rhee MK, Herrick K, Ziemer DC, Twombly JG, Phillips LS. Screening for diabetes and pre-diabetes with proposed A1C-based diagnostic criteria. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2184–2189 4. Kramer CK, Araneta MR, Barrett-Connor E. A1C and diabetes diagnosis: the Rancho Bernardo study. Diabetes Care 2010;33: 101–103
care.diabetesjournals.org
