4.6 Review

Glycated hemoglobin standardization - National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) perspective

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
Volume 41, Issue 9, Pages 1191-1198

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2003.183

Keywords

standardization; glycated hemoglobin; HbA(1c)

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [200199900131] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) demonstrated conclusively that risks for complications in patients with diabetes are directly related to glycemic control, as measured by glycated hemoglobin (GHb). Many diabetes organizations worldwide now recommend GHb targets in terms of DCCT/ UKPDS hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)). However, in 1993 there was a lack of comparability of GHb test results among methods and laboratories that represented a major obstacle to meaningful implementation of specific guidelines for diabetes care. The National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) was implemented to enable laboratories to report DCCT/UKPDStraceable GHb/HbA(1c) results. The number of methods and laboratories certified by the NGSP as traceable to the DCCT has steadily increased. Proficiency testing results show marked improvement in the comparability of GHb results. By the end of 2002, 98% of surveyed laboratories (n = approx. 2000) reported GHb results as HbA(1c) or equivalent compared to 50% in 1993. Ninetyseven percent of laboratories used an NGSPcertified method. For most certified methods in 2002, betweenlaboratory CVs were <5%. For all certified methods in 2002, the mean HbA1c value (%) was within 0.8% HbA(1c) from the NGSP target at all HbA(1c) concentrations. The vast majority of laboratories in the US are now reporting results that are traceable to DCCT/UKPDS outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available