Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 21, 2026
Improving IV Insulin Administration in a Community Hospital
Published on: June 11, 2012
Different DCCT-aligned HbA1c methods and the GMS contract
1Department of Clinical Biochemistry, The Ipswich Hospital, Ipswich, Suffolk, UK. ptwomey@nhs.net
Background:
Previously, different analytical methods could be compared on statistical and clinical grounds. Since 2003, the UK Departments of Health and general practitioners agreed a new primary care contract. This contract utilises clinical targets resulting in a third way to compare analytical methods.
Methods:
We compared two DCCT-aligned HbA1c analysers (Variant II analyser and a Tosoh G7) using 161 randomly selected patient specimens to see if different methods could lead to a difference in the classification for glycaemic control.
Results:
Ninety-seven (60.2%) and 109 (67.7%) patient specimens had a HbA1c
Conclusions:
The National Glycohemoglobin Standardisation Programme has used clinical limits to set standards for HbA1c based on a clinical recommendation from the American Diabetes Association and has resulted in improved generalisability of results. The difference found in this study would not have affected payment under the current GMS contract. However, if the maximum threshold for payment was increased from 50% and/or the HbA1c target was decreased from 7.4%, then payment may be affected. It is important that policy makers and healthcare professionals appreciate the limitations of DCCT alignment for HbA1c methods.
