HbA1c?

Status
Not open for further replies.
newbs

newbs

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Have just had my blood results and HbA1c is 50 (new way of giving result). The receptionist didn't know what that was in old terms but said it should be between 48-59. I think 50 equates to 6.7% (which is not great as far as my HbA1c's go) but surely her range can't be right, I try to aim for lower than 6.5% (even if not getting there). Maybe I'm not correct with 50 meaning 6.7%, am hoping someone knows more than me :confused:.

On a good note, my cholesterol is 3.5, much better as it started out as 6.3, statins have been upped to 40mg per day though and reading about statins, not sure if this is a good thing.
 
DiabetesUK. has a calculator working old levels out to new ones and 6.7 does equal 50, you are right. I followed the link above (Hba1c) or it's here

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/HbA1c

I believe they are still supposed to be giving out in both terms until May next year to give people a chance to get their head around the change
 
Hi newbs good news on the cholestorol thats good improvement, i was given my hbA like that and the receptionist said oh dear thats high you need to see your GP i was mortified talk about tact!
 
This dual reporting system has been running for a while - yet I have only ever been given the old measure. Maybe next week I will get another figure.

I don't know why they have to change as these new figures sound horrendous compared with what we are used to, a bit like if we tested our bm in the US and got their measures which are about 28 times ours.
 
Ill eat mysefly into a hyperglaecemic stupour if or when I get an HbA1c that low....................🙂
 
margie said:
This dual reporting system has been running for a while - yet I have only ever been given the old measure. Maybe next week I will get another figure.

I don't know why they have to change as these new figures sound horrendous compared with what we are used to, a bit like if we tested our bm in the US and got their measures which are about 28 times ours.
Click to expand...

US blood tests are 18x ours. I've only ever been given the 'old' format, but as has been said, they are supposed to be giving both formats since last year, until next May. I did read an article though, that suggested the old format will never disappear amongst the medical profession because they are so used to the old format, and leaving out the 'translation' may lead to errors so safer to always include both. I imagine it's going to be similar to metric/imperial - some people (including me!) have never quite got into using metric only and often have to translate the values!
 
Northerner said:
US blood tests are 18x ours. I've only ever been given the 'old' format, but as has been said, they are supposed to be giving both formats since last year, until next May. I did read an article though, that suggested the old format will never disappear amongst the medical profession because they are so used to the old format, and leaving out the 'translation' may lead to errors so safer to always include both. I imagine it's going to be similar to metric/imperial - some people (including me!) have never quite got into using metric only and often have to translate the values!
Click to expand...

The new format will be the only one reported by biochemistry labs as of 2011. The docs will probably adapt but then again if you've got my doc he won't as he's probably been here longer than the hospital has! I don't understand the mmol/mol values and probably never will. Old dog new tricks and that. There will also be alot of patients who won't understand the new system, or like me don't want to change as the system works perfectly well! As I understand it, it's being changed so that we conform to the Yankee method of doing things so soon we'll all be mating with vegetables soon. Oh I do dislike the special relationship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top