Hi
@tigerman and welcome to the forum
I think
@dannybgoode has explained it quite well for you.
As an example, when I was first diagnosed my Hba1c was 51 and my finger prick tests in the mornings (fasting) were in the mid 7's
Now my finger prick tests are in the mid 5's and my last Hba1c was 46.
There is a direct correlation between Hba1c and a finger prick test, so if you are getting and average of 5.7 (finger prick) you should be below 65 Hba1c in 3 months time.
It's not an exact science but will act a good guide as to how you are doing .
Alan
😉
Hi Alan, there is a general correlation between finger prick results and HbA1c, but certainly not a direct correlation between an HbA1c and a (ie just one) finger prick result. It's important to maintain clarity on this topic, since we have entirely different tests, with certain results having similar looking numbers but with different units. And this does cause a lot of confusion.
@tigerman,
an Hba1c shows on my official blood test results from my Oxford Hospital Trust as:
"Haemoglobin A1c DCCT aligned, blood" 7.0 %
and immediately below, is listed separately
"Glycated Haemoglobin reference" 53 mmol/mol.
Both attract a comment as HI, which is correct for others but wholly acceptable for myself as someone with no pancreas, as well as acceptable for my Consultant. My former GP in Bucks had slightly different vocabulary on my blood test results; so that caused extra confusion momentarily after I moved Counties. [The NHS doesn't help, I only moved 30 miles!]
The 7% is a direct conversion into 53mmol/mol, or vice versa.
But my spot check fp readings are of course "one offs" and could by chance be 7, or 4 or 10 (or worse!) but with rhe units in mmol/L. So the relationship between Hba1c and fps (or CGM readings) is close to comparing chalk and cheese [iinedible/edible, very different texture] and certainly not as close as comparing apples to oranges [both edible, nutritious but different clours].
Within this Forum was an excellent thread about Hba1c and other numbers, which I thought had been pinned to the top of one of the main Forum categories; that gave a much better explanation than my comments above. I feel that
@Docb initiated that thread (but I could be wrong) and I'm pretty sure
@everydayupsanddowns did the "pinning". Now, after a brief search, I can't find the post and it's thread, but hopefully someone will point us all in the right direction. Understanding the numbers and being careful with how they are used and interpreted is so fundamental - we all lazily write a number but all too often fail to write the relevant units, thus compounding the consequent misunderstandings.