[Results] A1c 9.1 → 5.4, full table, 14 months
A1c 9.1 → 5.4, full table, 14 months. Posting the boring middle of the process, because the internet is full of the start and the end and nothing else.
Figures up front so nobody has to dig: 14 months.
On hypoglycaemia, because the risk gets attributed to the wrong thing constantly.
Incretin-based agents stimulate insulin secretion in a glucose-dependent way: the effect scales with glycaemia rather than acting unconditionally. That is why monotherapy risk is low. Where risk rises substantially is in combination with agents that lower glucose independently of the current level.
Which means the question "does this cause hypos" is not answerable without knowing the rest of the regimen — and that the person who can answer it is the one who wrote the regimen. Nothing on this board is a substitute for that conversation, and the good threads here end by saying so.
The order things move in, since nobody explains it and it worries people.
Postprandial excursions generally respond earliest. Variability tends to narrow before the average does, which is visible on a sensor and invisible on a lab result. Fasting glucose is often the laggard, and A1c — being a three-month average — is the last thing to reflect anything.
So a month in which the sensor looks better and the fasting number has not moved is the ordinary sequence, not a contradiction. Knowing that in advance would have saved me a quarter of unnecessary worry, which is why it is worth writing down.
Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Certain conditions affect A1c independently of glycaemia. If a result looks inconsistent with the sensor data, that is a question for whoever manages your care rather than for this board.
[deleted]
Postprandial excursions flattened out first and the fasting number took months to follow. Nobody had told me to expect that order.
The diabetes and obesity programmes are separate, with different populations and different primary endpoints. Reading a result across from one to the other is not a comparison.
The diabetes and obesity programmes are separate, with different populations and different primary endpoints.
laila_wikstrom is right that the fasting number moves last. Knowing that in advance saves months of worry.
Same. The first day of a new sensor is unreliable and people rebuild their whole week around it.
Same.
Disagreeing with this line: that endpoint is from the obesity programme and does not answer the question.
Panicked over a first-day sensor reading and rebuilt my week around it. It was the sensor.
Brought the whole CGM export to my appointment rather than one number. Entirely different conversation.
Variability dropped before the average did, which was visible on the sensor and invisible on the lab result.
Time in range told me far more than the average did. Two quarters with the same A1c looked completely different on the sensor.
Agreed on variability. Two people with the same average can have completely different days.
sensor accuracy varies and the first day of a sensor is the worst
CGM shows you the shape, A1c shows you the area
Correction: that trial is the diabetes programme and the figure you quoted is its glycaemic endpoint, not a weight result.
- 1Certain conditions affect A1c independently of glycaemia. If a result looks…8 comments in this branch · started by u/nadia_norgaard