Having reviewed the data that my Libre has generated over the weekend (and for these purposes the libre is a cgm), I put forward the hypothesis in the title.
From my admittedly small sample size of one, since I started with the Libre I can see that my average glucose level has reduced, my likelihood of having a hypo has reduced and ability to maintain an optimum glucose level, measured by variance, has improved. I have not changed my insulin delivery method. It is still MDI.
I further postulate that with CGM, the Hba1c is redundant as the data set available to a clinician (and user) is substantially better.
My final postulation is that equipping diabetics, who meet appropriate criteria, with CGM rather than pumps, would be a more effective way of improving glucose level optimisation. I'm not saying that pumps don't have a place. I believe they do, but I believe that CGM offers a more effective route to diabetes management, for both HCPs and the diabetic themself.
Why do I believe this? I think the key benefit to the end user of CGM is a psychological one. Personally I want to keep my BG level within the target zone. It's a target and I want to hit it. Secondly, there is no hiding from rogue high readings, whether deliberately induced or not. If you can see them, you can see the damage you are doing yourself.
Then there is the practical side. That you are able to observe and treat highs and lows before they fully happen being one of the most critical, and the second being that patterns are significantly easier to spot and do something about. And when you are doing something, you have a full set of data to see the effects.
These are my thoughts on why CGM is the single most useful tool in treating diabetes. Am I off my rocker?
From my admittedly small sample size of one, since I started with the Libre I can see that my average glucose level has reduced, my likelihood of having a hypo has reduced and ability to maintain an optimum glucose level, measured by variance, has improved. I have not changed my insulin delivery method. It is still MDI.
I further postulate that with CGM, the Hba1c is redundant as the data set available to a clinician (and user) is substantially better.
My final postulation is that equipping diabetics, who meet appropriate criteria, with CGM rather than pumps, would be a more effective way of improving glucose level optimisation. I'm not saying that pumps don't have a place. I believe they do, but I believe that CGM offers a more effective route to diabetes management, for both HCPs and the diabetic themself.
Why do I believe this? I think the key benefit to the end user of CGM is a psychological one. Personally I want to keep my BG level within the target zone. It's a target and I want to hit it. Secondly, there is no hiding from rogue high readings, whether deliberately induced or not. If you can see them, you can see the damage you are doing yourself.
Then there is the practical side. That you are able to observe and treat highs and lows before they fully happen being one of the most critical, and the second being that patterns are significantly easier to spot and do something about. And when you are doing something, you have a full set of data to see the effects.
These are my thoughts on why CGM is the single most useful tool in treating diabetes. Am I off my rocker?