three years of T2D threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
three years of T2D threads, summarised so you do not have to read them. I have gone back and forth on this for months.
Panicked over a first-day sensor reading and rebuilt my week around it. It was the sensor.
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.
Postprandial excursions flattened out first and the fasting number took months to follow. Nobody had told me to expect that order.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Retitled — the original quoted an obesity endpoint as a glycaemic one.
[deleted]
Incretin-based agents stimulate insulin secretion in a glucose-dependent manner, which is why hypoglycaemia risk with them alone is low. Risk rises with agents that act independently of glycaemia.
Variability dropped before the average did, which was visible on the sensor and invisible on the lab result.
Brought the whole CGM export to my appointment rather than one number. Entirely different conversation.
Are you quoting a diabetes trial or an obesity one?
postprandial excursions are where most of the improvement shows up first
dose for glycaemic control is not the same conversation as dose for weight
Correction: that trial is the diabetes programme and the figure you quoted is its glycaemic endpoint, not a weight result.
nothing here replaces the person managing your diabetes
the fasting number is the one people fixate on and it moves last
Kept fingersticks alongside the sensor for two weeks to sanity-check it. Worth doing once.
Small fix — insulin secretion in this class is glucose-dependent, which is precisely why the risk you describe comes from the other agent.
A1c is a three-month average and it lags everything
sensor accuracy varies and the first day of a sensor is the worst
hypoglycaemia risk depends far more on what else you take
Agreed on variability. Two people with the same average can have completely different days.
check the trial population before quoting a result at somebody
Not convinced. Hypoglycaemia risk from this class alone is low; the risk you are describing comes from the combination.
Have you taken this to whoever manages your diabetes?
Agreed on variability.
Agreed, and the glucose-dependence point is the reason the risk profile reads the way it does.
Agreed. A1c is an integrated average over roughly three months and treating it as a current reading causes a lot of unnecessary alarm.
glycaemic control and weight are two different endpoints
That is a sensor value, not a plasma value, and the two are not interchangeable at that level of precision.
This. Hypoglycaemia risk in this class is driven mostly by the other agents in the regimen.
- 1Brought the whole CGM export to my appointment rather than one number.…7 comments in this branch · started by u/amylin_amy