Monitor help

[Sekhmet]

Hi guys and gals,

Am new here so hello first of all 🙂

At the end of last year I was tested for diabetes and my glucose levels were raised but only by a little (5m/mol).
I am therefore trying to lower this level through diet, weight loss and exercise (exercise is difficult though as I also have fibromyalgia and an under-active thyroid so my evergy levels are zilch ). I bought myself a new Accu-Chek Mobiel meter and have been using this with no problems. However my GP gave me an Gluco-Men Areo recently and am finding teh results are really different from both monitors e.g -
This morning before breakfast: Accu-Chek 6.9
GlucoMen 8.4

This is a bit of a difference !! 😱😱😱😱😱

Which monitoe should I believe ??

TIA

S

 

[grovesy]

Welcome.

 

[mikeyB]

Hi, Sekhmet, welcome to the forum.

First thing to say is when you say you were tested for diabetes, your glucose level was raised at 5. That is perfectly normal, not raised.

The difference between meters is not surprising. They are accurate only within 15%, so if you add up those differences between two, they can show such a difference, and the next time be almost the same. In other words, it's not a question of which meter is better, if you had 5 meters none of them would show exactly the same reading.

Finally, has your diagnosis of diabetes been confirmed? Has your GP ordered blood tests such as HbA1c?

 

[Sekhmet]

Hello, sorry thats my fault.... my glucose level was 5 m/mol above the normal threshold on a fasting test so my GP said I now have to be classed as diabetic.
As far as I know it was done on a HbA1c test.

However, I have noticed that my glucose level only seems slightly raised first thing (its usually between 6.0 and 7.5 m/mol each morning before breakfast) but for the rest of the day its normally fine and within the thresholds for before and after meals. So i dont know what this means.

 

[trophywench]

They can't actually diagnose diabetes just from one fasting blood test. What 'threshold' were you given for the test? Was it an armful of blood sent off to the lab (in which case it could be either BG or HbA1c, or both) or a 'fingerprick' test with a meter not unlike yours?

Having done a fingerprick test that proved suspicious, they'd still have to send 'an armful' off to the lab for your HbA1c, to confirm or deny their suspicions.

HbA1cs are measured in numbers with two figures - like eg 25 or 48 or 62 whereas meter results are always expressed in percentages (in the UK) as you know. (HbA1cs also used to be expressed in percentages, but they haven't been for about the last 5 years - eg mine last year (June and Dec) were 45 and 46)

Do you think he rather meant that it looks like if you don't take yourself in hand and try and reduce your risk yourself, it looked like you could easily develop into diabetes, so for the time being, try treating yourself as if you'd been diagnosed? I'm not making ANY assumptions here - but who knows? - perhaps you might be in one of the categories where a tendency to develop diabetes has been shown to be prevalent (eg S Asian and certain other groups, heritage), hence the GP's warning?

 

[Vicsetter]

HbA1cs are measured in numbers with two figures - like eg 25 or 48 or 62 whereas meter results are always expressed in percentages (in the UK) as you know.

Oooh where can I get one of these new meters mine still reads mmol/L.
HBA1c is in mmol/mol and is a 2 DIGIT number between 31 and 108😱.

S.
A reading of between 6 and 7.5 in the morning is not normal for a non-diabetic (normal is between 4 and 6) and that you are only on diet and exercise seems to indicate that you are considered borderline. You are lucky to be given a meter.
High risk of developing diabetese, according to NICE is a fasting glucose level (hence by meter) of 5.5 or more.
See http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes_care/blood-sugar-level-ranges.html

 

[trophywench]

You are of course perfectly correct in correcting my percentage - which I apologise for - but perhaps ever so slightly pedantic with the second line ...... if I was being hypercritical myself LOL

The likelihood of it being the 'high risk' thing - rather than it being an definite diagnosis, was what I wanted to highlight, so thanks for that, - since I didn't know there were published Guidelines for this. 5.5 even if no other 'risk' factors.