• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

QRISK3

LionChild

Well-Known Member
Messages
315
Location
Birmingham UK
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Insulin
Dislikes
whisky
Has anyone on here done the QRisk3 test on line? It is meant to indicate what your cardiovascular risk is as a percentage. On this form, it does ask if you are a type 1, and I find that if I untype that my risk comes down to what would be normal for my age of 73. If I do tick it, my risk goes up to the age of an 83 year old! Yet my BG is well controlled and always around 40. It has never been more than 43 since my diagnosis. I am on a low carb diet. What I find odd is that this does not even ask for your A1C. Surely if your blood glucose is well managed, that risk level as indicated on this form, should drop dramatically? Yet the form does not allow for that information to be inserted.

According to this test, my risk is around 39% of a cardiovascular event in the next ten years. And, this high level of risk is clearly because I am a type 1 diabetic. As I say, this does not take into account the level of BG control. Any thoughts on this anyone?
 
I’ve used Q Risk 3 and yes it does the same for type 2 diabetics. At least Q Risk 3 asks for more info that Q Risk 2 did. My diabetes diagnosis adds 10% to my score. Even adding my post code increases my risk by 1%!
I agree a further improvement would be to add HbA1c score, after all it lets you add your latest BP.
 
I've posted my thoughts in the past on the massive change the single tickbox makes, when I was looking at the data that goes into it, I remarked that the number of T1 diabetics is very small in comparison to the T2 diabetics, and that it lumps everyone together irrespective of control. Re control, the average HbA1c for diabetics in the UK is not very good, so adding those two things together I'm not at all convinced that it (the tickbox) is a useful feature on anything but a population scale.
 
SimonP78 said:
I remarked that the number of T1 diabetics is very small in comparison to the T2 diabetics, and that it lumps everyone together irrespective of control
Click to expand...
With Q Risk 3 you need to choose between non diabetic, type 1 diabetic or type 2. The three different choices give three different scores, so us diabetics aren’t “lumped in together”.
 
It's the A1C that is missing and should be included in this assessment.
 
Rachox said:
With Q Risk 3 you need to choose between non diabetic, type 1 diabetic or type 2. The three different choices give three different scores, so us diabetics aren’t “lumped in together”.
Click to expand...
Ah, interesting they've separated the two (and good news). I'm doubtful they've significantly increased the size of the cohort though. Do you know, out of interest, what factor they apply for T1 vs T2 in the equation?

I think the point stands about whether the cohort is representative though, I'll have to have another look at references and the factors they apply.

Thanks for pointing it out
 
SimonP78 said:
Do you know, out of interest, what factor they apply for T1 vs T2 in the equation?
Click to expand...
I’ve just put my details in and selected non diabetic, type 2 then type 1 in turn. My results were as follows:
Non d = 8.3%
Type 2 = 15.6%
Type 1 = 24.3%
Here’s a link to the site so you could do the same with your info. if you’d like to.

QRISK3

qrisk.org
 
Whatever I do, as soon as I put my age in it gives me a high risk. Same applies for mentioning T2.

It's one of those things where the separate categories of "Type 2 Diabetic" and "person with high blood glucose" are assumed by officialdom to be essentially the same thing. There is no conception (and this extends to medical text books etc) that there are people, diagnosed as T2, who do not have high blood glucose, some of whom do not use medication.
 
I saw my GP recently with whom I discussed this and he had no answers really. I was told a while ago that with having Type 1, comes other variables, not just those which show on the form on line, but systemic issues - although I do not have much idea of what those other variables are that affect type 1s, besides the A1C results. When 'complications' are discussed, apparently this refers only to neuropathy, for example, but the word does not refer to cardiovascular events. Therefore, the online form is focused on, not how well blood glucose is managed but other systemic matters in a type 1's body. Whatever they are? I The cholesterol/HDL ratio is, I understand more important than the total cholesterol. But it is the total which the GPs seem to be more interested in for some reason? Mine I am told is far too high for a type 1, at 5.5. He keeps saying I should be on statins, but I take Sterol tablets, 3 a day, and that brought it down in my previous test from the 5s to 4.9... Doc says us type 1s have stickier vessels. Ugh?! Now that could be the first line of a new poem...........?
 
Last edited:
LionChild said:
and he had no answers really
Click to expand...
I have had the same recently. Despite having HbA1Cs in the 30s for eight years I have recently developed Raynauds and peripheral neuropathy in my feet. Both the vascular surgeon and the neurologist I’ve seen similarly were quick to blame my diabetes, when I questioned why, they both just said because diabetics are more likely to get these problems! When I asked why neither had any answers really
 
Interesting tht your GP thinks he's an expert on T1 but cannot explain what he means or produce relevant papers. (Spoiler: Those papers do not exist because there's not yet enough data on very well managed diabetics and time in range.)
I've had various HCP's mention as a side remark "oh, and your diabetes doesn't help either of course", to which I replied "how so? I thought diabetes issues were caused by high BG, not by just having T1".
None of them had an answer although some persisted T1 does 'something' even without elevated BG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…