I too agree. We can relate % directly to our finger-prick measurements (even though it is a different measurement), whereas the new figure is alien. I suspect it is an attempt to restrict info, rather than inform, so that we are increasingly in the hands of the health professionals.
Britain is part of the world and it is the result of an International agreement. The changes are to reflect improvements in modern testing and to ensure international standardisation. New methods meant that the percentages given were not really accurate reflections .
http://www.ngsp.org/ifccngsp.asp
On top of that parts of the world including some parts of Scandanavia and Japan used methods that meant that their HbA1cs were not at all the same as those used elsewhere .(eg the Swedish Mono S HbA1c reads about 1% lower than the DCCT HbA1c formerly used in the UK and other parts of the world
Imagine the confusion that could cause when a person from Sweden moved to the UK
All HbA1c methods will now give the same result in the same units no matter where in the world the analysis is performed.
I cannot see why you think that there is an to restrict info anywhere; convertors are freely available in many places including the DUK website.
Here is a Swedish one, explaining the differences to that population. (note they have been using the new units for over 2 years now)
http://www.hba1c.nu/english.htm
There is also a proposal to also give estimated average glucose levels to patients . This hasn't been implemented in most countries (including the UK). There is some concern that these figures may not apply to all groups so countries like the UK are awaiting the results of further trials.
I think that the change may be beneficial in those countries such as the UK that use mmol/l There were people that did seem to equate their meter readings with their HbA1cs and of course they were not equivalent at all.
An HbA1c of say 5.7% is the equivalent of an estimated average glucose level of 6.5mmol/l (ie not an average in the 5s)
An HbA1c of 10% is the equivalent of an estimated average glucose of 13.4mmol/l (much more than an average of 10)
I live in a country where that type of confusion was never a possibility, my glucose is measured in mg/dl and the 5.7% reflects an average of 117mg/dl .
The new changes will affect all countries, some sooner than later.
It's just a new figure and eventually when they drop dual reporting people will get used to it, new people will never know the 'old' method.
