 |
 |
Yes, it matters. And for me this diversity of current practice greatly reduces one of the arguments against the move to a definition of DM based on glycated haemoglobin. Jonathan On 14 May 2013, at 13:00, "Sanders, Anna" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Thanks for all the replies. It seems that many people are using glutole, polycal or lucozade, and all being justified for different reasons… Glutole – specifically designed for GTTs, is well tolerated, but more expensive (approx. £2.80/bottle not inc. VAT). Polycal – much cheaper and readily available, but the manufacturer says it shouldn’t be used for this purpose, and what’s in it exactly? (?has other carbohydrate in it). Lucozade – relatively cheap and well tolerated, but requires a larger volume than recommended by WHO. The glucose powder is now too expensive for anyone to use. What is interesting is that labs are doing different things for different patient groups, e.g. GPs have the powder, whilst the lab uses polycal. I suppose the obvious question is, does this variation in practice matter? It is known that the CV for a GTT is high (off the top of my head, I recall up to 30%, but please correct me if I’m wrong), so any variation relating to different glucose drinks may make little difference (??)… and does anyone care (I do), since HbA1c is now being favoured by many clinicians? ------ACB discussion List Information-------- This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical community working in clinical biochemistry. Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and they are responsible for all message content. ACB Web Site http://www.acb.org.uk Green Laboratories Work http://www.laboratorymedicine.nhs.uk List Archives http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html List Instructions (How to leave etc.) http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/