Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Are occasional bgl spikes a problem?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Grateful" data-source="post: 1601158" data-attributes="member: 438800"><p>Many thanks!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Summary: In non-diabetic people, red blood cells live longer than in diabetics (as long as 146 days). This can drive up the A1C to mistakenly high levels in non-diabetic people. The converse is true for diabetics, whose red blood cells live for as few as 81 days. This leads to falsely low A1C levels in diabetics. Post-meal home glucose tests are a much better indicator.</p><p></p><p>My reaction: This seems to raise more questions than it answers. If the readings are "falsely low" in diabetics, and if this is a general problem, surely the cutoff level of 6.5% takes that into account? The A1C test has been standardized since around 2009 (the article dates from early 2011).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Summary: Situations where the average red blood cell lifespan is significantly less than 120 days will usually give rise to low HbA1c results because 50% of glycation occurs in days 90-120.</p><p></p><p>My reaction: Same as previous article. I honestly do not understand this point at all.</p><p></p><p>Summary: The test is unreliable in patients whose BG oscillates between very high and very low. In these cases the A1C should be supplemented by home BG tests.</p><p></p><p>My reaction: Now we are getting somewhere! Mind you, the question of whether very high and very low spikes are bad in themselves (even with a good A1C) is not tackled directly. But it makes sense to me that <em>very</em> large daily spikes could be dangerous.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Summary: Similar point to previous two articles. A1C can be artifically low because diabetics' red blood cells have shorter life. I still do not understand this point at all! Additional (already well known) points: the test can be unreliable in the presence of anemia, or for certain ethnic groups, or in the presence of certain genetic factors.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Summary: A controlled trial, comparing the A1C method with the CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) method. It was found that, "not infrequently," A1C and CGM gave different results. "Thus, a patient’s CGM glucose profile has considerable value for optimizing his or her diabetes management."</p><p></p><p>Reaction: This is much better evidence, since it is based on a controlled trial. I would love to know what "not infrequently" means. The trial consisted of 387 people and the article is recent (published this year). I have only consulted the free summary. Unfortunately, to see the actual data costs $35 for a one-day peek. Has anyone seen the full data and can tell us what is meant by "not infrequently"?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Summary: A1C will vary between individuals because of various factors. This makes it unrealistic to apply a "one size fits all" diagnostic level for diabetes, for all individuals. Factors such as anemia make a difference. Plus, in any case, a given A1C test should be considered to be accurate to no better than about plus or minus 0.5 percentage points (which is quite a range!).</p><p></p><p>Reaction: Fair enough, but already widely known. To me what matters is the personal <em>trend</em>. I know where <em>my</em> A1C started, at diagnosis. If I can lop off "X" percentage points with diet/exercise, that is what matters to me, without obsessing too much about the absolute level. Concerning the second point (the margin of error on each A1C test). Personally, I don't obsess about a 0.5-percentage-point shift up or down. On the day of my diagnosis, the first thing I looked up was the margin of error: with my reading of 8.3%, I was obviously diabetic even if the reading had been erroneously high by 0.5 percent.</p><p></p><p>______</p><p>From reading the above articles, I emerge somewhat more convinced of the usefulness of self-testing on a daily basis, after meals, and so forth. However none of them really answers the question, "are daily (or occasional) spikes dangerous, as long as my A1C is under control?"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grateful, post: 1601158, member: 438800"] Many thanks! Summary: In non-diabetic people, red blood cells live longer than in diabetics (as long as 146 days). This can drive up the A1C to mistakenly high levels in non-diabetic people. The converse is true for diabetics, whose red blood cells live for as few as 81 days. This leads to falsely low A1C levels in diabetics. Post-meal home glucose tests are a much better indicator. My reaction: This seems to raise more questions than it answers. If the readings are "falsely low" in diabetics, and if this is a general problem, surely the cutoff level of 6.5% takes that into account? The A1C test has been standardized since around 2009 (the article dates from early 2011). Summary: Situations where the average red blood cell lifespan is significantly less than 120 days will usually give rise to low HbA1c results because 50% of glycation occurs in days 90-120. My reaction: Same as previous article. I honestly do not understand this point at all. Summary: The test is unreliable in patients whose BG oscillates between very high and very low. In these cases the A1C should be supplemented by home BG tests. My reaction: Now we are getting somewhere! Mind you, the question of whether very high and very low spikes are bad in themselves (even with a good A1C) is not tackled directly. But it makes sense to me that [I]very[/I] large daily spikes could be dangerous. Summary: Similar point to previous two articles. A1C can be artifically low because diabetics' red blood cells have shorter life. I still do not understand this point at all! Additional (already well known) points: the test can be unreliable in the presence of anemia, or for certain ethnic groups, or in the presence of certain genetic factors. Summary: A controlled trial, comparing the A1C method with the CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) method. It was found that, "not infrequently," A1C and CGM gave different results. "Thus, a patient’s CGM glucose profile has considerable value for optimizing his or her diabetes management." Reaction: This is much better evidence, since it is based on a controlled trial. I would love to know what "not infrequently" means. The trial consisted of 387 people and the article is recent (published this year). I have only consulted the free summary. Unfortunately, to see the actual data costs $35 for a one-day peek. Has anyone seen the full data and can tell us what is meant by "not infrequently"? Summary: A1C will vary between individuals because of various factors. This makes it unrealistic to apply a "one size fits all" diagnostic level for diabetes, for all individuals. Factors such as anemia make a difference. Plus, in any case, a given A1C test should be considered to be accurate to no better than about plus or minus 0.5 percentage points (which is quite a range!). Reaction: Fair enough, but already widely known. To me what matters is the personal [I]trend[/I]. I know where [I]my[/I] A1C started, at diagnosis. If I can lop off "X" percentage points with diet/exercise, that is what matters to me, without obsessing too much about the absolute level. Concerning the second point (the margin of error on each A1C test). Personally, I don't obsess about a 0.5-percentage-point shift up or down. On the day of my diagnosis, the first thing I looked up was the margin of error: with my reading of 8.3%, I was obviously diabetic even if the reading had been erroneously high by 0.5 percent. ______ From reading the above articles, I emerge somewhat more convinced of the usefulness of self-testing on a daily basis, after meals, and so forth. However none of them really answers the question, "are daily (or occasional) spikes dangerous, as long as my A1C is under control?" [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Are occasional bgl spikes a problem?
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…