Accuracy of Three Commercial Home-Use Hemoglobin A1c Tests.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and the rapid expansion of telemedicine have increased the need for accurate and reliable capillary hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing. Nevertheless, validation studies of commercially available products suitable for home use have been in short supply. Methods: Three commercial home-use capillary blood sample HbA1c tests (Home Access, CoreMedica, and A1cNow+) were evaluated in 219 participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (4-80 years years of age, HbA1c 5.1%-13.4% [32-123 mmol/mol]) at four clinical sites. Comparisons were made between HbA1c measurements from the commercial tests and paired venous samples for which HbA1c was measured at two central reference laboratories. The primary outcome was percentage of commercial HbA1c values within 5% of the corresponding reference values. Results: HbA1c values were within 5% (relative difference) of paired reference values for 82% of Home Access samples, 29% of CoreMedica samples, and 46% of A1cNow+ samples. Absolute differences were within 0.3% of the reference value for 75% of Home Access samples, 28% of CoreMedica samples, and 44% of A1cNow+ samples and exceeded 0.5% for 8%, 55%, and 37%, respectively. Conclusions: None of the commercial home-use HbA1c tests produced the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program goal of ≥90% measurements within 5% of a DCCT venous reference. However, the Home Access product performed substantially better than the CoreMedica or A1cNow+ products. Telemedicine is likely to persist as a mainstay of diabetes care well after the COVID-19 era. As such, accurate home-based HbA1c assessment represents an urgent need for the diabetes community.

The Inaccuracy of Commercial Home Hemoglobin A1c Tests

The COVID-19 pandemic and rapid expansion of telemedicine has increased the need for accurate and reliable capillary A1c testing. Nevertheless, validation studies of commercially available kits have been in short supply. As such, capillary and venous A1c samples were assessed using 3 commercial home kits (Home Access, CoreMedica, A1cNow) and 2 non-commercial kits from academic centers (U of MN Advanced Research and Diagnostic Lab [ARDL] and Children's Mercy Hospital [CMH]). Samples were collected either with study staff guidance (non-commercial) or hands-on assistance (commercial) and sent by USPS for processing except for the immediate response A1cNow+ kit. Differences in A1c between commercial kits and reference values were appreciable (Table). Notably, none of the commercially tested kits reached the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program target of more than 90% of values within 5% of DCCT venous reference values although the Home Access kit performed much better than the other two. In contrast, evaluation of kits from ARDL and CMH showed 97.4% of values within the 5% standard. Ease of use and discomfort with sample collection varied between kits. While the accuracy of the commercial kits analyzed was limited, participants' response was positive overall. Telemedicine is likely to persist as a mainstay of diabetes care well after the COVID-19 era. As such, accurate home A1c testing represents an urgent need for the diabetes community.

An Evaluation of Two Capillary Sample Collection Kits for Laboratory Measurement of HbA1c.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the conduct of clinic visits. We conducted a study to evaluate two academic laboratories' fingerstick capillary blood collection kits suitable for home use for laboratory measurement of HbA1c. Methods: Four clinical sites recruited 240 participants (aged 4-80 years, HbA1c 5.1%-13.5%). Capillary blood samples were obtained by the participant or parent using collection kits from two laboratories (University of Minnesota Advanced Research and Diagnostic Laboratory (ARDL) and Children's Mercy Hospital Laboratory (CMH)) and mailed under varying shipping conditions by United States Postal Service to the laboratories. Comparisons were made between HbA1c measurements from capillary samples and contemporaneously obtained venous samples. The primary outcome was percentage of capillary HbA1c values within 5% of the corresponding venous values. Results: HbA1c values were within 5% of venous values for 96% of ARDL kit specimens shipped with a cold pack and 98% without a cold pack and 99% and 99%, respectively, for the CMH kits. R2 values were 0.98, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.99, respectively. Results appeared similar across HbA1c levels and for pediatric and adult participants. Usability survey scores were high. Conclusions: Capillary blood collection kits, suitable for home use, from two academic laboratories, were demonstrated to be easy to use and provided results that are comparable with those obtained from venous specimens. Based on these results, there is strong evidence that HbA1c measurements from capillary specimens obtained with these specific kits can be used interchangeably with HbA1c measurements from venous specimens for clinical research and clinical care.