Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 2026

Improving IV Insulin Administration in a Community Hospital
Published on: June 11, 2012
Implications of different DCCT-aligned HbA1c methods on GMS clinical indicators
P J Twomey1, G Rayman, D R Pledger
1Department of Clinical Biochemistry, The Ipswich Hospital, Ipswich, UK. ptwomey@nhs.net
Insights
Different glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing methods impact diabetes management under UK General Medical Services (GMS) contracts. Understanding these HbA1c method limitations is crucial for healthcare professionals and policymakers.
Area of Science:
- Clinical Chemistry
- Diabetes Mellitus Management
- Health Policy
Background:
- The UK General Medical Services (GMS) contract incentivizes diabetes care, including glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing.
- Specific codes (DM5-DM7) focus on HbA1c targets, contributing significantly to practice income.
- Variability in HbA1c testing methods may affect achievement of treatment targets.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare two routinely used Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)-aligned HbA1c methods.
- To assess if differences in HbA1c assay results could lead to variations in achieving treatment targets across UK general practices.
Main Methods:
- A comparative analysis of two HbA1c testing platforms: DCA 2000+ Analyser and Variant II analyser.
- 164 patient samples were randomly selected and analyzed on both devices.
Main Results:
- A statistically significant difference (P < 10(-09)) was observed between the two HbA1c methods.
- Despite a small mean difference (6.5%), the methods classified 18.9% of patients (31 individuals) differently regarding the DM6 GMS target (HbA1c ≤ 7.4%).
- The DCA 2000+ Analyser identified more patients below the target (38.4%) compared to the Variant II analyser (19.5%).
Conclusions:
- While DCCT-alignment has improved HbA1c value transferability, it has not eliminated method-dependent discrepancies.
- Healthcare professionals and policymakers must be aware of the limitations of current DCCT-aligned HbA1c assays.
- These limitations have potential financial and clinical implications for diabetes care delivery and performance monitoring.
Background:
In 2003, a new General Medical Services (GMS) contract was agreed between UK general practitioners and the Department of Health. The three diabetes codes DM5-DM7 require glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) testing and comprise 30 points in total, with 27 points being related to target glycaemic control. We compared two routinely used Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)-aligned HbA(1c) methods to determine if different HbA(1c) methods could lead to postcode treatment to target across the UK.
Methods:
A total of 164 specimens were randomly selected from diabetic patients attending the Diabetes Centre at the Ipswich Hospital. Samples were analysed on both a DCA 2000+ Analyser and a Variant II analyser.
Results:
Despite a mean difference of only 6.5% between the two methods, 32 (19.5%) and 63 (38.4%) patient samples had an HbA(1c) < or = 7.4% with the Variant II analyser and DCA 2000+ Analyser, respectively. Thus, the two methods differed according to the DM6 GMS target by 31 patients, or 18.9% of the total number of patients in this study. The difference between the two methods was statistically significant with P < 10(-09) (McNemar's test).
Conclusions:
DCCT-alignment has improved the transferability of HbA(1c) values; however, it is not perfect. It is important that the limitations of current DCCT-aligned HbA(1c) methods are understood by health-care professionals and policy makers, as these may have important financial and clinical implications.
Related Concept Videos
Type II Diabetes Mellitus III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnosis
Diabetes Mellitus: Type 2 and Gestational
Hyperglycemia
Diabetes: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Complications