david252 said:Snip..
david252 said:I really wouldn't worry too much about an HbA1c of 7.2% though. The target keeps changing. A few years back the target HbA1c in general (ie no complications etc) was 7.5%. They (NICE) then reduced it to 7% and were about to reduce it to 6.5% until a study showed that statistically the mortality rate was higher with an Hba1c of 6.5% compared to 7% (no-one really knew why - various postulations about more hypo's in elderly populations being dangerous etc) and so they kept it at 7%.
phoenix said:Morevover, (as mentioned in the article linked by Catherine) they have very recently published a paper with very different findings. There were more deaths in the intensive arm, but this was in people who were unable to lower their HbA1cs in spite of the intensive medication.
Various characteristics of the participants and the study sites at baseline had significant associations with the risk of mortality. Before and after adjustment for these covariates, a higher average on-treatment A1C was a stronger predictor of mortality than the A1C for the last interval of follow-up or the decrease of A1C in the first year. Higher average A1C was associated with greater risk of death. The risk of death with the intensive strategy increased approximately linearly from 6–9% A1C and appeared to be greater with the intensive than with the standard strategy only when average A1C was >7%.
CONCLUSIONS These analyses implicate factors associated with persisting higher A1C levels, rather than low A1C per se, as likely contributors to the increased mortality risk associated with the intensive glycemic treatment strategy in ACCORD
Diabetes Care May 2010
david252 said:your GP should have access to a local primary care based type 2 DM specialised education group, usually led by dieticians, that he/she can refer you to for this type of advanced patient education
Pneu said:david252 said:I really wouldn't worry too much about an HbA1c of 7.2% though. The target keeps changing. A few years back the target HbA1c in general (ie no complications etc) was 7.5%. They (NICE) then reduced it to 7% and were about to reduce it to 6.5% until a study showed that statistically the mortality rate was higher with an Hba1c of 6.5% compared to 7% (no-one really knew why - various postulations about more hypo's in elderly populations being dangerous etc) and so they kept it at 7%.
You might want to read this:
They found no evidence that hypos were a problem.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153578.php
phoenix said:Morevover, (as mentioned in the article linked by Catherine) they have very recently published a paper with very different findings. There were more deaths in the intensive arm, but this was in people who were unable to lower their HbA1cs in spite of the intensive medication.
Various characteristics of the participants and the study sites at baseline had significant associations with the risk of mortality. Before and after adjustment for these covariates, a higher average on-treatment A1C was a stronger predictor of mortality than the A1C for the last interval of follow-up or the decrease of A1C in the first year. Higher average A1C was associated with greater risk of death. The risk of death with the intensive strategy increased approximately linearly from 6–9% A1C and appeared to be greater with the intensive than with the standard strategy only when average A1C was >7%.
CONCLUSIONS These analyses implicate factors associated with persisting higher A1C levels, rather than low A1C per se, as likely contributors to the increased mortality risk associated with the intensive glycemic treatment strategy in ACCORD
Diabetes Care May 2010
drippihippy said:I test 2/3 times daily with strips and on average I am mostly in the mid 5's 2 hours after meals, sometimes in the 6's and sometimes in the 4's after exercise [cycling twice daily] I have checked that the meters are accurate.
My strip results have been in the above ranges for the last 5/6 months yet my HbA1c is 7.2, I would have expected it to be lower given my daily blood test strip results, I don't eat sugar, junk food, rice, pasta, potatoes, cereal, and only 2 slices of Granary bread a day, maybe I'm expecting too much too soon but surely there is a correlation between strip results and the HbA1c figure?
david252 said:Anyway, I really wouldn't worry too much about an HbA1c of 7.2% though. The target keeps changing. A few years back the target HbA1c in general (ie no complications etc) was 7.5%. They (NICE) then reduced it to 7% and were about to reduce it to 6.5% until a study showed that statistically the mortality rate was higher with an Hba1c of 6.5% compared to 7% (no-one really knew why - various postulations about more hypo's in elderly populations being dangerous etc) and so they kept it at 7%.
A recent observational UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD) study has reported increased risk of total mortality with lower HbA1c with lowest risk for HbA1c 7.5%, and also a 49% higher risk of total mortality with insulin treatment versus oral agents. However, this was not verified in the NDR study, showing no J-shaped risk curve for total mortality in patients treated with insulin or oral agents, and that the increased risk of total mortality with insulin was due almost exclusively to an increased risk of non-CVD mortality, and that HbA1c was not at all associated with non-CVD mortality
david252 said:Try checking them at different times out of interest, especially after meals and you will probably find that they will be significantly higher than 5 0r 6mmol/l. You have type 2 diabetes for crying out loud - that's what it does! That's how it's diagnosed!! A person without diabetes will have a rise in post prandial blood sugars let alone a type 2 diabetic.
david252 said:Try checking them at different times out of interest, especially after meals and you will probably find that they will be significantly higher than 5 0r 6mmol/l. You have type 2 diabetes for crying out loud - that's what it does!
Defren said:david252 said:Try checking them at different times out of interest, especially after meals and you will probably find that they will be significantly higher than 5 0r 6mmol/l. You have type 2 diabetes for crying out loud - that's what it does!
Sorry, I have to say this, but you are talking out of your hat!! My readings pre and post prandial are never higher than 5.5. I can test any time of the day (don't do night testing) and they are always around the same. I have worked damned hard to achieve the levels I have now, and I don't appreciate you - a 'so called ex GP' telling me my meter, my readings, my hard won gains and a 4.9 Hba1c is not true. Perhaps YOUR diabetes was so badly controlled that YOU got figures of higher than 5 or 6 mmol/l + but please don't tar us all as not proactive in our own condition!!!!
david252 said:My intention was not to antagonise everybody. This is going to be my last post as I've had enough of this. I tried to do a quick post but it didn't seem to work, so I appologise if this comes through twice.
Drippihippy, the bottom line is this:
1. Medicine is not an exact science and it is possible (but unlikely) that your HbA1c result is inaccurate. Much more likely that your home BGs are inaccurate as home meters are not going to give you lab certified accuracy, just a guide.
2. Don't get too caught up in the numbers, whichever way you look at it - your home measurements are EXCELLENT. Your HbA1c is EXTREMELY GOOD. Well done and keep up the good work.
david252 said:Anyway, back to the original point of the post before I opened this can of worms! :***: I really wouldn't worry too much about an HbA1c of 7.2% though. The target keeps changing. A few years back the target HbA1c in general (ie no complications etc) was 7.5%. They (NICE) then reduced it to 7% and were about to reduce it to 6.5% until a study showed that statistically the mortality rate was higher with an Hba1c of 6.5% compared to 7% (no-one really knew why - various postulations about more hypo's in elderly populations being dangerous etc) and so they kept it at 7%.
HbA1c is not an absolute target and there are various reasons why some people may want or need to have a higher target.
In any case 7.2% is really pretty good and statistically will have very little difference to morbidity/mortality compared with 7%.
Remember that HbA1c is an AVERAGE - over the last 3 months and 7.2% is roughly equivalent to a continuous home reading of about 9.5mmol/l. Your fasting blood sugars may be in the 5-6mmol/l range but I bet they aren't at this level after a meal (nobody's is - not even non diabetics). After a meal they could rise to as high as 15mmol/l or more, for example, depending on the type and amount of carbohydrate eaten (I've blathered on enough about GI so won't bore you a;; again).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?