Wed, Jun 17, 2026
1- Department of Biochemistry, Mamata Academy of Medical Sciences, Bachupally, Hyderabad - 500090 India
2- Department of Biochemistry, Mamata Academy of Medical Sciences, Bachupally, Hyderabad - 500090 India ,brneeharika@gmail.com
2- Department of Biochemistry, Mamata Academy of Medical Sciences, Bachupally, Hyderabad - 500090 India ,
Abstract: (1699 Views)
Abstract
Background
Accurate estimation of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is critical for diagnosing and managing diabetes mellitus. Ion-exchange high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is considered the gold standard for HbA1c measurement, while nephelometry is widely used in clinical laboratories due to its rapid turnaround time. This study compares the accuracy, reliability, and clinical applicability of these two methods.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital, where HbA1c levels of 50 patients with diabetes mellitus were measured using both ion-exchange HPLC and nephelometry. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland–Altman analysis, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. A paired t-test was used to assess statistical significance, with p<0.05 considered significant.
Results
The mean HbA1c levels were comparable between HPLC (6.2% ± 1.5) and nephelometry (6.3% ± 1.4), with a high correlation (r = 0.96, p < 0.01) and excellent agreement (ICC = 0.96). Bland–Altman analysis showed minimal bias (mean difference = 0.09%). ROC curve analysis indicated high diagnostic performance for both methods, with HPLC demonstrating superior sensitivity (90%) and specificity (92%) compared to nephelometry (88% sensitivity, 91% specificity). Nephelometry had a faster turnaround time but slightly lower specificity.
Conclusion
Both HPLC and nephelometry provide reliable HbA1c measurements, with HPLC offering superior specificity and diagnostic precision, while nephelometry provides a quicker alternative for routine clinical use. The selection of the method should be based on clinical requirements, balancing accuracy and operational efficiency.
Background
Accurate estimation of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is critical for diagnosing and managing diabetes mellitus. Ion-exchange high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is considered the gold standard for HbA1c measurement, while nephelometry is widely used in clinical laboratories due to its rapid turnaround time. This study compares the accuracy, reliability, and clinical applicability of these two methods.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital, where HbA1c levels of 50 patients with diabetes mellitus were measured using both ion-exchange HPLC and nephelometry. The results were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland–Altman analysis, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. A paired t-test was used to assess statistical significance, with p<0.05 considered significant.
Results
The mean HbA1c levels were comparable between HPLC (6.2% ± 1.5) and nephelometry (6.3% ± 1.4), with a high correlation (r = 0.96, p < 0.01) and excellent agreement (ICC = 0.96). Bland–Altman analysis showed minimal bias (mean difference = 0.09%). ROC curve analysis indicated high diagnostic performance for both methods, with HPLC demonstrating superior sensitivity (90%) and specificity (92%) compared to nephelometry (88% sensitivity, 91% specificity). Nephelometry had a faster turnaround time but slightly lower specificity.
Conclusion
Both HPLC and nephelometry provide reliable HbA1c measurements, with HPLC offering superior specificity and diagnostic precision, while nephelometry provides a quicker alternative for routine clinical use. The selection of the method should be based on clinical requirements, balancing accuracy and operational efficiency.
Keywords: HbA1c, Diabetes Mellitus, Ion-Exchange HPLC, Nephelometry, Diagnostic Accuracy, Glycated Haemoglobin
Research Article: Original Paper |
Subject:
Biochemistry
Received: 2025/02/28 | Accepted: 2025/11/22
Received: 2025/02/28 | Accepted: 2025/11/22
References
1. International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 11th edn. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2024. Available from: https://idf.org/news/idf-diabetes-atlas-11th-edition/
2. Rathod L, Khan S, Shubham S, Bisne N, Singh S, Kumar M, et al. A comparative evaluation of point-of-care and laboratory HbA1c testing in diabetes care: an Indian perspective. Cureus. 2024;16(9):e69956. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
3. Association AD. 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of care in diabetes -2024.Diabetes Care. 2024;47(Supplement_1):S309-S313. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
4. Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Raghavan A, Nanditha A. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes. In: Holt RIG, Cockram CS, Flyvbjerg A, Goldstein BJ, editors. Textbook of Diabetes. 6th ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2024. p. 22-7. [View at Publisher] [DOI]
5. International Expert Committee. International Expert Committee report on the role of the A1C assay in the diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(7):1327-34. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
6. Altawallbeh G, Makky VF, Saenger AK, Peters JM, Killeen AA. Evaluation of an ion-exchange HPLC device for HbA1c measurement. J Appl Lab Med. 2020;5(4):695-703. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
7. Kurniawan LB. HbA1c as a diabetes mellitus biomarker and its methods evolution. Indones J Clin Pathol Med Lab. 2024;30(2):198-203. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8. Weykamp C. HbA1c: a review of analytical and clinical aspects. Ann Lab Med. 2013;33(6):393-400. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
9. National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP). Factors that interfere with HbA1c test results [Internet]. Columbia (MO): University of Missouri; [cited 2025 Jul 24]. Available from: https://ngsp.org/factors.asp
10. Rajan SS, Misquith A, Rangareddy H. Calculated glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) compared with estimated HbA1c by nephelometry and its correlation to estimated average blood glucose (eAG). Galore Int J Health Sci Res. 2020;5(4):100-4. [View at Publisher]
11. Little RR, Rohlfing C, Sacks DB. The National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program: over 20 years of improving HbA1c measurement. Clin Chem. 2019;65(7):839-48. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
12. Sherwani SI, Khan HA, Ekhzaimy A, Masood A, Sakharkar MK. Significance of HbA1c test in diagnosis and prognosis of diabetic patients. Biomark Insights. 2016;11:95-104. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
13. Rohlfing CL, Wiedmeyer H-M, Little RR, England JD, Tennill A, Goldstein DE. Defining the relationship between plasma glucose and HbA1c: analysis of glucose profiles and HbA1c in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(2):275-8. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
14. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, Zheng H, Schoenfeld D, Heine RJ Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1473-8. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
15. Prathima MB, Reshma S, Sushith, Shetty P, Janice D, Kalal BS, et al. Estimation of glycated haemoglobin by nephelometry, ion exchange resin, and high-performance liquid chromatography: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14(9):BC01-BC05. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16. Miller WG, Jones GRD, Horowitz GL, Weykamp C, Goodall I, Holmes EW, et al. Challenges in HbA1c measurement: a survey of metrological traceability and quality. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;13(1):3–11.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Contact us
Tel & Fax: (+98) 17-32450093
E-mail:
goums.ac.ir
yahoo.com