Nisma Douzi, Oussama Grari, Imad-Eddine El Khamlichi, Soufiane Beyyoudh, Dounia El Moujtahide, El-Houcine Sebbar, Mohammed Choukri
{"title":"Comparison of two analytical methods for HbA1c determination: HPLC ADAMS™ (ARKRAY A1c HA-8180T) versus CAPILLARYS 3 OCTA® (Sebia) capillary electrophoresis system.","authors":"Nisma Douzi, Oussama Grari, Imad-Eddine El Khamlichi, Soufiane Beyyoudh, Dounia El Moujtahide, El-Houcine Sebbar, Mohammed Choukri","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>HbA1c is a valuable indicator for the diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of diabetic patients. Our study aims to compare two methods of measuring HbA1c: capillary electrophoresis on the CAPILLARYS 3 OCTA ® (Sebia) with HPLC ADAMS™ (ARKRAY A1c HA-8180T) used routinely in our laboratory, to avoid any discrepancies in patient monitoring in case of changes in the HbA1c measurement method. A total of 103 blood samples from adult patients received at the laboratory have been analyzed in parallel, singly, on both machines. The results show a good correlation between the two systems with a correlation coefficient of 0.991. The Bland and Altman difference diagram shows that the average bias between ADAMS A1c™ and CAPILLARYS 3 OCTA ® is 2.087 mmol/mol (95% CI: 1.7357 to 2.4390 mmol/mol) in IFCC units and 0.19% (95% CI: 0.1602 to 0.2262%) in the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) units, and that out of all the patients studied, only four had values outside the limits of the difference diagram. The latter shows a uniform dispersion of values across all the analyzed measurements, with over 95% of the differences between measurements falling within the range [-1.43; 5.61 mmol/mol] or [-0.14; 0.52%]. These results enable us to confirm the reliable transferability between the two techniques without compromising accuracy. Both machines can therefore be used interchangeably or as backup, ensuring homogeneous patient monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":37192,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine","volume":"37 2","pages":"319-325"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13088505/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
HbA1c is a valuable indicator for the diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of diabetic patients. Our study aims to compare two methods of measuring HbA1c: capillary electrophoresis on the CAPILLARYS 3 OCTA ® (Sebia) with HPLC ADAMS™ (ARKRAY A1c HA-8180T) used routinely in our laboratory, to avoid any discrepancies in patient monitoring in case of changes in the HbA1c measurement method. A total of 103 blood samples from adult patients received at the laboratory have been analyzed in parallel, singly, on both machines. The results show a good correlation between the two systems with a correlation coefficient of 0.991. The Bland and Altman difference diagram shows that the average bias between ADAMS A1c™ and CAPILLARYS 3 OCTA ® is 2.087 mmol/mol (95% CI: 1.7357 to 2.4390 mmol/mol) in IFCC units and 0.19% (95% CI: 0.1602 to 0.2262%) in the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) units, and that out of all the patients studied, only four had values outside the limits of the difference diagram. The latter shows a uniform dispersion of values across all the analyzed measurements, with over 95% of the differences between measurements falling within the range [-1.43; 5.61 mmol/mol] or [-0.14; 0.52%]. These results enable us to confirm the reliable transferability between the two techniques without compromising accuracy. Both machines can therefore be used interchangeably or as backup, ensuring homogeneous patient monitoring.