hbac1

[fergfisherman]

my recent hbaci was good the doctor said my target of 7.5 was 7.3 then i asked him yes but it was good because it does not take into account the hypos i had therefore its a false positive anybody else experiance this

 

[hallii]

Your HbA1c is simply a way of averaging your BG levels for the past months. So if you had hypos they will only affect the average slightly.

So, yes, you can have a good HbA1c but still have highs and lows. That is why it is important to test and try to keep the highs down and the lows up. That way you will have a more even BG level but the HbA1c result might be exactly the same.

7.3% or 7.5% are so close as to be of little importance, it is an acceptable level if you are on insulin, you can't try to be to low or you will get hypos as you have found out.

Maybe someone on insulin might be able to add something, I am not on insulin so cannot comment from personal knowledge.

H

 

[borofergie]

Your HbA1c is simply a way of averaging your BG levels for the past months. So if you had hypos they will only affect the average slightly.

I don't think that hypos influence the average at all. I'm doubting that there is very much difference between glycation rates at 5mmol/l and 3mmol/l. I get the impression that glycation only really occurs when you spike. It doesn't measure various degrees of "non-glycation" at non-spiking BG levels.

Might be wrong though.

 

[Grazer]

I don't think that hypos influence the average at all. I'm doubting that there is very much difference between glycation rates at 5mmol/l and 3mmol/l. I get the impression that glycation only really occurs when you spike. It doesn't measure various degrees of "non-glycation" at non-spiking BG levels.

Might be wrong though.

I think you're probably right, looking at it logically. A non diabetic has a pretty steady glycation rate giving an average of 4.6% HbA1c across that population. Almost a fixed rate. We get an increased rate as our BG increases, but you can't "unglycate" I wouldn't think; in other words, you don't get a "minus" rate during low episodes. This is why it is comparitively easy to reduce very high HbA1cs by reducing the peaks, but as your figure gets lower, it becomes very difficult to knock off the odd 0.1% because there are no more spikes to reduce and you can't "minus" with lower than normal periods. Made sense when I thought about it,; not sure of it does when I read it now! :think:

 

[leb]

Hi i have been told by my diabetic consultant that hypos deffinitely do affect your hba1c and give a sort of faulse reading. This is apparently because it takes an average.

 

[eltharia]

Hi, I'm not sure what the hell my docs. are up to but apparently they measure HBACi differently now. Mine is 80. Its used to be 12-13, my consultant is a complete idiot so I don't bother to see him anymore. I'd rather trust Charles manson with my health nowdays. Can anyone explain why the measurements have been changed? Also all these "doctors" who are regarded as experts at diabetes, none of them actually know what diabetes is and what the impacts are. Just that It will make our legs fall off, turn us blind and that we might hypo if we act "irresponsibly". They never explained to me when I was diagnosed that I would have to live a life of poverty due to the fact that employers will not touch me with a barge pole after I have filled in their offensive, human abusing medical forms. How many of these Diabetes EXPERTS are actually diabetic? And why is it that diabetics are not allowed to train to become diabetes specialists? We are the ones that know about it, how to deal and cope with it etc... To be honest my consultant does NOT know much more than me. He just paid a fortune to become apparently "knowledgable" about it. He is a royal idiot.

 

[PHARMANCO]

The A1c value is now reported in mmol/mol instead of % values.

Therefore, 80 mmol/mol would equal 11%

The new mmol/mol value will allow you to detect smaller ups or downs that the older % value would not show.

I would advise you to accept the new system and watch you levels rise and fall in mmol/mol. Thus, your next
draw might show decrease to 75 mmol but converting it to % the value would remain 11

 

[borofergie]

The A1c value is now reported in mmol/mol instead of % values.

Therefore, 80 mmol/mol would equal 11%

The new mmol/mol value will allow you to detect smaller ups or downs that the older % value would not show.

I would advise you to accept the new system and watch you levels rise and fall in mmol/mol. Thus, your next
draw might show decrease to 75 mmol but converting it to % the value would remain 11

This is just wrong, I get one decimal place for my HbA1c readings, so I get 4.9% instead of 5%.

In either case, I strongly doubt that the tests are accurate to 1mmol/l or 0.1%, so you're kidding yourself if you're thinking that you can detect smaller variations.

 

[phoenix]

Therefore, 80 mmol/mol would equal 11%

It would be the equivalent of 9.5%
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Professional ... 1c-values/
People need to use both if they use forums. Most of the rest of the world doesn't (yet?) use mmol/mol.

Periods where you are low presumably result in non glycation/low glycation (non glycation at very low levels? not sure) but for most people and most hypos, the time spent with very low blood glucose is relatively short. It will be your time at normal and higher levels that has most influence.
There is evidence that some people with low HbA1cs (below 6.5%) may have too many hypos, resulting in a lack of awareness. They may also be having missing hypos at night . These periods could, if frequent , influence the HbA1c . My own experience using a continuous monitor did show some missed hypos . They were only transitory. I lowered my basal overnight to try to avoid this. It didn't seem to alter my HbA1c.
Grazer there is something about unglycation; I understand the most recent glycation is reversible

HbA1c reflects levels of glycemia over the preceding 4–12 wk, weighted toward the most recent 4 wk.
However, the most recent week is not included because the most recent glycation is reversible

http://www.ispad.org/FileCenter/ISPAD%2 ... le%201.pdf
The chemical reaction is described in detail some papers but I haven't really understood it