In this issue of Diabetes Care, Dr. David Sacks has nicely delineated the pros and cons of the measurements of glucose concentrations and A1C levels and the resulting effects on using each to diagnose diabetes (1). With the continued improvement in A1C assays, the balance seems to increasingly favor using A1C levels. This commentary will examine an issue that has received scant attention in the past, i.e., what is the actual evidence upon which the current glucose criteria for diagnosing diabetes mellitus is based?

Glucose concentrations in almost all populations (except those with very high prevalences of diabetes, e,g., Pima Indians), are distributed unimodally with a rightward skew (2,3), making the choice of a diagnostic value for diabetes arbitrary. If glucose concentrations are log-transformed to minimize the rightward skewness, a bimodal distribution has been noted (48). However, cutoff values defining the two distributions have ranged from 200–307 mg/dL, mostly depending on the ages of the population surveyed (38).

Prior to 1979, at least six different sets of criteria diagnosed diabetes (9). In 1979, the National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) resolved this issue by establishing one set of criteria (10). They selected these criteria based on glucose concentrations that allegedly predicted the development of diabetic retinopathy, a specific microvascular complication of diabetes. Three prospective studies (1113) were available to the NDDG on which to base their decision. A total of 1,213 patients were followed for 3 to 8 years after oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs), 77 of whom developed retinopathy. There was no further evaluation of their glycemic status after the original OGTT, although it was very likely that the 77 people who developed retinopathy in the studies used by the NDDG to establish the diagnostic criteria had increasing glycemia in the years between the test and the identification of retinopathy. However, on the basis of these 77 individuals, the NDDG selected a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentration of ≥140 mg/dL or a 2-h value after 75 g oral glucose of ≥200 mg/dL to diagnose diabetes. Thus, the “gold standard” 2-h value on an OGTT for diagnosing diabetes rests on fewer than 100 individuals whose glycemic status was unknown for years prior to the development of retinopathy. A description of the three studies used for their decision is available (14).

In the mid-1990s, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) convened an Expert Committee (15) to reexamine the diagnosis of diabetes in light of any new information available since the NDDG report. An overriding goal of the committee was to make the FPG concentration and the 2-h glucose concentration on the OGTT equivalent for the diagnosis of diabetes, that is, if one criterion was met, the other would likely be met as well (15,16). With the NDDG criteria, ∼95% of patients whose FPG concentrations were 140 mg/dL had 2-h glucose concentrations ≥200 mg/dL on the OGTT (17), but only one-quarter to one-half of patients with 2-h values on the OGTT ≥200 mg/dL had FPG concentrations ≥140 mg/dL (1719). The Expert Committee decided to retain the 2-h glucose concentration of ≥200 mg/dL as a diagnostic criterion because changing it “would be very disruptive” considering the large number of epidemiological studies using that value to define diabetes (15).

The FPG concentration that gave a prevalence of diabetes equivalent to the 2-h value of ≥200 mg/dL on an OGTT was ∼126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L) (5,15,20,21) and was selected by the Expert Committee (15). They sought to justify the new lowered FPG criterion of ≥126 mg/dL for the diagnosis of diabetes by linking levels of glycemia with diabetic retinopathy in populations of Pima Indians (n = 960) (5), Egyptians (n = 1,081) (22), and a randomly selected cohort in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) (n = 2,821) (15). FPG, 2-h OGTT glucose, and A1C levels were divided into deciles and plotted against the prevalence of retinopathy in each decile. The values reported by the Expert Committee (15) for the first decile with an increase in retinopathy in the three studies were, respectively, as follows: FPG 136, 130, and 120 mg/dL; 2-h glucose 244, 218, and 195 mg/dL; and A1C 6.7, 6.9, and 6.2%. These values are very misleading, however, because they were the lowest glycemic level of each initial decile in which the prevalence of retinopathy increased. Although the individual values of these patients with retinopathy were unknown, it is extremely unlikely that most of them congregated at the lower end of the decile. Using the values at the bottom of the decile for diagnosis certainly increases the sensitivity of the glucose criteria but at the usual expense of decreasing the specificity. Unfortunately, the lowest values of these deciles have been used to support the current glucose criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes (23,24). It is much more likely that the mean/median glycemic values of the decile more truly represent the patients with retinopathy. These mid-decile values (25) were, respectively: FPG 167, 155, and 165 mg/dL; 2-h glucose 298, 252, and 292 mg/dL; and A1C 7.8, 7.5, and 7.4%. Thus, since most people agree that the microvascular complication of retinopathy is the basis upon which glucose criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes should be chosen, the diagnosis in many individuals using the current glucose criteria are false-positives.

Further evidence that the present glucose criteria are too low if retinopathy is used to identify the glycemic levels by which to diagnose diabetes is the relationship among the microvascular complications of diabetes, glucose concentrations, and A1C levels. Five longitudinal studies in over 2,000 diabetic patients followed from 4 to 9 years demonstrated very little development or progression of diabetic retinopathy or nephropathy if the average A1C levels were maintained between 6 and 7% and none if they were kept in the normal range below 6% (2630). Yet, if the current glucose criteria are used, many people who are diagnosed with diabetes have normal A1C levels. For instance, in the NHANES III population with no history of diabetes, 61% and 19% of those with FPG concentrations of 126–139 mg/dL and ≥140 mg/dL, respectively (25), and 69% and 41% of those with 2-h glucose concentrations on an OGTT of 200–239 mg/dL and ≥240 mg/dL, respectively (31), had normal A1C levels. Given that bona fide diabetic retinopathy is not seen in people with normal A1C levels (5,15,22,23,32), do we really want to diagnose diabetes in such individuals?

In contrast to the three studies (5,15,22) allegedly supporting the current glucose criteria, three subsequent ones (33) could not confirm threshold values for FPG or 2-h glucose concentrations on an OGTT for retinopathy. On the other hand, threshold values for A1C levels have been confirmed (23,32).

As already pointed out (1,23), there are a number of advantages to using A1C levels to diagnose diabetes, e.g., less variability of the assay compared with glucose, removal of preanalytic modifying factors, much less day-to-day variability (<2%) compared with FPG (12–15%), and better reflection of long-term glycemia. On the other hand (1,23), there are potential disadvantages, e.g., interference by hemoglobinopathies, influence of iron status (34) and erythrocyte turnover, and increased levels in African Americans (3537) and Latinos (37) independent of glucose concentrations. These are not insurmountable barriers. Regarding hemoglobinopathies, in the 20 different Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) aligned assays in use, HbS, HbC, and HbE interfere with only four and HbD with only two (38). In the NHANES 1999–2006 population without known diabetes, mean A1C levels were equal or 0.1% higher in iron-deficient women and men, respectively, compared with their iron-sufficient counterparts (39). The iron status might be evaluated in young menstruating women with A1C levels ≥6.5% before making the diagnosis of diabetes. Finally, since increased glycation is one cause of diabetes complications (40), the slightly higher A1C levels in minorities might have pathological significance.

In conclusion, the weakness of the evidence for the current glucose criteria to diagnose diabetes strongly supports Dr. Sacks’ contention based on measurement considerations that if A1C assays aligned with the DCCT assay (38) are available, the diagnosis of diabetes should be made by A1C levels ≥6.5% (24). In addition to the measurement issues, the rationale for this conclusion is that 1) the distribution of glucose concentrations in most populations is unimodal with no consistent cut point with which to diagnose diabetes; 2) bona-fide retinopathy, a specific complication of diabetes, is not seen in people whose A1C levels are <6.5% (23,32); 3) raised A1C levels cause the microvascular complications of diabetes, and lowering levels is beneficial (26,27,41); and 4) increased glycation of proteins is one of the causes of diabetes complications, supplying a direct link between the diagnosis and the complications (40). If a DCCT-aligned A1C assay is not available, glucose criteria can be used to diagnose diabetes. Confirmation of diagnostic values should utilize the same test to avoid confusion whereby individuals have diabetes by one criterion but not by another.

M.B.D. has received support from the National Institutes of Health grants U54 RR02613 and U54 CA143931, and from ADA.

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

1.
Sacks
DB
.
A1C versus glucose testing: a comparison
.
Diabetes Care
2011
;
34
:
518
523
2.
Gordon
T
.
Glucose tolerance of adults, United States, 1960-1962: diabetes prevalence and results of glucose tolerance test, by age and sex. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 11, No.2
.
Washington, DC
,
US Government Printing Office
,
1964
3.
Hayner
NS
,
Kjelsberg
MO
,
Epstein
FH
,
Francis
T
 Jr.
.
Carbohydrate tolerance and diabetes in a total community, Tecumseh, Michigan. I. Effects of age, sex, and test conditions on one-hour glucose tolerance in adults
.
Diabetes
1965
;
14
:
413
423
4.
Zimmet
P
,
Whitehouse
S
.
Bimodality of fasting and two-hour glucose tolerance distributions in a Micronesian population
.
Diabetes
1978
;
27
:
793
800
5.
McCance
DR
,
Hanson
RL
,
Charles
MA
, et al
.
Comparison of tests for glycated haemoglobin and fasting and two hour plasma glucose concentrations as diagnostic methods for diabetes
.
BMJ
1994
;
308
:
1323
1328
6.
Raper
LR
,
Taylor
R
,
Zimmet
P
,
Milne
B
,
Balkau
B
.
Bimodality in glucose tolerance distributions in the urban Polynesian population of Western Samoa
.
Diabetes Res
1984
;
1
:
19
26
7.
Rosenthal
M
,
McMahan
CA
,
Stern
MP
, et al
.
Evidence of bimodality of two hour plasma glucose concentrations in Mexican Americans: results from the San Antonio Heart study
.
J Chronic Dis
1985
;
38
:
5
16
8.
Fan
J
,
May
SJ
,
Zhou
Y
,
Barrett-Connor
E
.
Bimodality of 2-h plasma glucose distributions in whites: the Rancho Bernardo study
.
Diabetes Care
2005
;
28
:
1451
1456
9.
Valleron
AJ
,
Eschwège
E
,
Papoz
L
,
Rosselin
GE
.
Agreement and discrepancy in the evaluation of normal and diabetic oral glucose tolerance test
.
Diabetes
1975
;
24
:
585
593
10.
National Diabetes Data Group
.
Classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and other categories of glucose intolerance
.
Diabetes
1979
;
28
:
1039
1057
11.
Jarrett
RJ
,
Keen
H
.
Hyperglycaemia and diabetes mellitus
.
Lancet
1976
;
2
:
1009
1012
12.
Sayegh
HA
,
Jarrett
RJ
.
Oral glucose-tolerance tests and the diagnosis of diabetes: results of a prospective study based on the Whitehall survey
.
Lancet
1979
;
2
:
431
433
13.
Pettitt
DJ
,
Knowler
WC
,
Lisse
JR
,
Bennett
PH
.
Development of retinopathy and proteinuria in relation to plasma-glucose concentrations in Pima Indians
.
Lancet
1980
;
2
:
1050
1052
14.
Davidson
MB
,
Peters
AL
,
Schriger
DL
.
An alternative approach to the diag-nosis of diabetes with a review of the literature
.
Diabetes Care
1996
;
18
:
1065
1071
15.
Expert Committee
.
Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus
.
Diabetes Care
1997
;
20
:
1183
1197
16.
Davidson
MB
.
Correction to the 2010 report on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2010
;
33
:
e57
17.
Peters
AL
,
Davidson
MB
,
Schriger
DL
,
Hasselblad
V
;
Meta-analysis Research Group on the Diagnosis of Diabetes Using Glycated Hemoglobin Levels
.
A clinical approach for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus: an analysis using glycosylated hemoglobin levels
.
JAMA
1996
;
276
:
1246
1252
18.
Harris
MI
,
Hadden
WC
,
Knowler
WC
,
Bennett
PH
.
Prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance and plasma glucose levels in U.S. population aged 20-74 yr
.
Diabetes
1987
;
36
:
523
534
19.
Modan
M
,
Harris
MI
.
Fasting plasma glucose in screening for NIDDM in the U.S. and Israel
.
Diabetes Care
1994
;
17
:
436
439
20.
Finch
CF
,
Zimmet
PZ
,
Alberti
KGMM
.
Determining diabetes prevalence: a rational basis for the use of fasting plasma glucose concentrations?
Diabet Med
1990
;
7
:
603
610
21.
Koehler
C
,
Temelkova-Kurktschiev
T
,
Henkel
E
,
Schaper
F
,
Fuecker
K
,
Hanefeld
M
.
Is the newly suggested fasting plasma glucose cut-off point for the diagnosis of diabetes the right one?
Diabetologia
1999
;
42
:
635
636
22.
Engelgau
MM
,
Thompson
TJ
,
Herman
WH
, et al
.
Comparison of fasting and 2-hour glucose and HbA1c levels for diagnosing diabetes. Diagnostic criteria and performance revisited
.
Diabetes Care
1997
;
20
:
785
791
23.
International Expert Committee
.
International Expert Committee report on the role of the A1C assay in the diagnosis of diabetes
.
Diabetes Care
2009
;
32
:
1327
1334
24.
American Diabetes Association
.
Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus
.
Diabetes Care
2010
;
33
(
Suppl. 1
):
S62
S69
25.
Davidson
MB
,
Schriger
DL
,
Peters
AL
,
Lorber
B
.
Relationship between fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin: potential for false-positive diagnoses of type 2 diabetes using new diagnostic criteria
.
JAMA
1999
;
281
:
1203
1210
26.
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group
.
The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus
.
N Engl J Med
1993
;
329
:
977
986
27.
Ohkubo
Y
,
Kishikawa
H
,
Araki
E
, et al
.
Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study
.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract
1995
;
28
:
103
117
28.
Krolewski
AS
,
Laffel
LMB
,
Krolewski
M
,
Quinn
M
,
Warram
JH
.
Glycosylated hemoglobin and the risk of microalbuminuria in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus
.
N Engl J Med
1995
;
332
:
1251
1255
29.
Tanaka
Y
,
Atsumi
Y
,
Matsuoka
K
,
Onuma
T
,
Tohjima
T
,
Kawamori
R
.
Role of glycemic control and blood pressure in the development and progression of nephropathy in elderly Japanese NIDDM patients
.
Diabetes Care
1998
;
21
:
116
120
30.
Warram
JH
,
Scott
LJ
,
Hanna
LS
, et al
.
Progression of microalbuminuria to proteinuria in type 1 diabetes: nonlinear relationship with hyperglycemia
.
Diabetes
2000
;
49
:
94
100
31.
Davidson
MB
,
Schriger
DL
,
Peters
AL
,
Lorber
B
.
Revisiting the oral glucose tolerance test criterion for the diagnosis of diabetes
.
J Gen Intern Med
2000
;
15
:
551
555
32.
Sabanayagam
C
,
Liew
G
,
Tai
ES
, et al
.
Relationship between glycated haemoglobin and microvascular complications: is there a natural cut-off point for the diagnosis of diabetes?
Diabetologia
2009
;
52
:
1279
1289
33.
Wong
TY
,
Liew
G
,
Tapp
RJ
, et al
.
Relation between fasting glucose and retinopathy for diagnosis of diabetes: three population-based cross-sectional studies
.
Lancet
2008
;
371
:
736
743
34.
Brooks
AP
,
Metcalfe
J
,
Day
JL
,
Edwards
MS
.
Iron deficiency and glycosylated haemoglobin A
.
Lancet
1980
;
2
:
141
35.
Saaddine
JB
,
Fagot-Campagna
A
,
Rolka
D
, et al
.
Distribution of HbA(1c) levels for children and young adults in the U.S.: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
.
Diabetes Care
2002
;
25
:
1326
1330
36.
Herman
WH
,
Ma
Y
,
Uwaifo
G
, et al
;
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
.
Differences in A1C by race and ethnicity among patients with impaired glucose tolerance in the Diabetes Prevention Program
.
Diabetes Care
2007
;
30
:
2453
2457
37.
Davidson
MB
,
Schriger
DL
.
Effect of age and race/ethnicity on HbA1c levels in people without known diabetes mellitus: implications for the diagnosis of diabetes
.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract
2010
;
87
:
415
421
38.
HbA1c methods and hemoglobin variants (HbS, HbC, HbE and HbD traits) [online]. National Glyco Standardization Program. Available from http://www.ngsp.org/interf.asp. Accessed 2 June 2010
39.
Kim
C
,
Bullard
KM
,
Herman
WH
,
Beckles
GL
.
Association between iron deficiency and A1C levels among adults without diabetes in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2006
.
Diabetes Care
2010
;
33
:
780
785
40.
Goh
S-Y
,
Cooper
ME
.
Clinical review: The role of advanced glycation end products in progression and complications of diabetes
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2008
;
93
:
1143
1152
41.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group
.
Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33)
.
Lancet
1998
;
352
:
837
853
[Erratum, Lancet 1999;354:602]
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.