Home Current Issue Previous Issues For Authors Journal Info
Skip Navigation LinksHome > September 2006 - Volume 5 - Issue 3 > Clinical Evaluation of a Rapid A1C Test (A1cNow) for Home Us...
You could be reading the full-text of this article now...
If you have access to this article through your institution, you can view this article in OvidSP.
Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology:
September 2006 - Volume 5 - Issue 3 - pp 116-120
doi: 10.1097/01.poc.0000232578.91019.03
Original Articles

Clinical Evaluation of a Rapid A1C Test (A1cNow) for Home Use

Klonoff, David C. MD; Bergenstal, Richard M. MD; Cole, Thomas G. PhD; Bohannon, Nancy J.V. MD; Ammirati, Erika B. BS; Blatt, Joel M. PhD; Irvin, Benjamin R. PhD; Stivers, Carole R. PhD; Clark, Annette L. BS

Collapse Box

Abstract

Introduction: A1C can be measured by portable point-of-care methods that might offer advantages compared with conventional sampling of venous blood for eventual laboratory testing.

Methods: In a 2-part study, we compared the performance and ease of use of A1C measurement with a single-use, disposable A1C test (A1cNow) and a venous sample measured by a reference laboratory. Part 1: At 3 sites, 297 untrained subjects self-tested with an A1cNow. Trained medical professionals performed a second A1cNow test on each subject. Venous blood was sent to a National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program Secondary Reference Laboratory for A1C testing. Untrained and professional A1cNow test results were compared with the reference results and with each other. A quiz and questionnaire evaluated, respectively, subject comprehension of A1cNow's product labeling and opinions on ease of use. Part 2: At a fourth site, trained medical professionals performed an A1cNow test on 30 subjects. Venous blood was sent to the same reference laboratory. Professional A1cNow test results were compared with reference results. The professionals recorded the amounts of time needed for A1cNow testing and reference laboratory testing.

Results: Part 1: For untrained A1cNow versus reference, the slope and y intercept were 0.988 and 0.168, respectively, with r = 0.93 (paired Student t test, P = 0.50). For professional A1cNow versus reference, the slope and y intercept were 0.965 and 0.400, respectively, with r = 0.94 (paired Student t test, P = 0.21). For untrained versus professional A1cNow, with Deming regression, the slope and y intercept were 0.972 and 0.269, respectively, with r = 0.88 (paired Student t test, P = 0.58). Overwhelmingly, subjects responded correctly to quiz questions and favorably to opinion questions about the product's ease of use. Part 2: For professional A1cNow versus reference, the slope and intercept were 0.9504 and +0.28, respectively, with r = 0.95 (paired Student t test, P = 0.85).

Conclusions: Untrained users can operate the A1cNow test with good performance equivalent to that obtained by trained medical professional users.

© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Login




Help

Forgot Password?

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.