Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus

Background: Multiple laboratory tests are used to diagnose and manage patients with diabetes mellitus. The quality of the scientific evidence supporting the use of these tests varies substantially. Approach: An expert committee compiled evidence-based recommendations for the use of laboratory testing for patients with diabetes. A new system was developed to grade the overall quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Draft guidelines were posted on the Internet and presented at the 2007 Arnold O. Beckman Conference. The document was modified in response to oral and written comments, and a revised draft was posted in 2010 and again modified in response to written comments. The National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry and the Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Committee of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry jointly reviewed the guidelines, which were accepted after revisions by the Professional Practice Committee and subsequently approved by the Executive Committee of the American Diabetes Association. Content: In addition to long-standing criteria based on measurement of plasma glucose, diabetes can be diagnosed by demonstrating increased blood hemoglobin A$_{1c}$ (HbA$_{1c}$) concentrations. Monitoring of glycemic control is performed by self-monitoring of plasma or blood glucose with meters and by laboratory analysis of HbA$_{1c}$. The potential roles of noninvasive glucose monitoring, genetic testing, and measurement of autoantibodies, urine albumin, insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, and other analytes are addressed. Summary: The guidelines provide specific recommendations that are based on published data or derived from expert consensus. Several analytes have minimal clinical value at present, and their measurement is not recommended

Therapeutic drug monitoring—antiepileptic drugs

Aims: To provide a brief critical review of the basis and contemporary practice of monitoring the concentrations of antiepileptic drugs in biological fluids. Methods: The review is based on literature data and observations from clinical practice. Results: As experience has accumulated, monitoring of antiepileptic drug concentrations has come to be applied mainly to certain of the drugs when present in whole plasma. For these drugs there is a reasonably established relationship between drug concentrations and biological effects, but attention still needs to be paid to issues such as the timing of the measurements in relation to drug intake, the presence or absence of steady-state conditions, the presence in plasma of active metabolites and possible nonlinear pharmacokinetics of particular agents e.g. phenytoin. Conclusions: Plasma antiepileptic drug concentration monitoring is coming to be used in a more thoughtful and critical manner. Lack of adequate knowledge of matters such as the relationship between the plasma concentrations and antiepileptic and toxic effects of the drugs, not only the newer, but also the longer established ones, in particular clinical situations, remains more important than deficiencies in analytical methodology in limiting the clinical usefulness of antiepileptic drug concentration monitoring