I've just had a go and came out at 14% which seems high for someone only recently diabetic and relatively fit etc. I think I'm with Helli on this one in that it feels quite a blunt tool bit like BMI . Does it assume that you're not managing your diabetes or does it take a 70% TIR as the baseline? My last two hospital consults I've been told very bluntly that I will get complications and I did wonder if that was true, based on old data or just an assumption that most people won't manage their condition that well? My numbers are much better than friends with type 2 who take a more relaxed approach but again no idea what that actually means? Is type 1 (as no box for type 3) inherently much worse?
-
Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
Statin - starting dose
- Thread starter helli
- Start date
Or is it assumed we have it for longer based on the myth that it is only diagnosed as a child?
I was surprised that the impact on QRISK3 is higher if you select Type 1 than if you select type 2 and this was the only explanation I could come up with.
It feels to me (as someone with no medical training) that the potential risk is higher for type 2 because you can have it for longer without any diagnosis and, hence, no treatment. But what do I know? I am just speculating which I know I shouldn't.
Morning All.It will be based on very general statistics like whether you have any of the risk factors so whether you are diabetic/ have smoked/ high cholesterol/high BMI etc.
So it will not take into account length of condition/ levels of control or measurement etc as you will either not have enough patients to fully validate it or much more likely they keep it simple so that it can have a very basic and general acceptance and suggest preventative treatment guidelines for the general patient population.
grovesy
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
I have not long come off the phone from the Practice Nurse, the recommendations are also now if you are over 70 to be prescribed regardless conditions as prevention.
Although conversation about Cholesterol, was informative, as I can't take Statins, she could not discuss the alternatives, she has to refer back to a Doctor.
For reference, this is a QRISK3 calculator so you can how it is calculated and what is taken into consideration: https://qrisk.org/
But my wonderings were about how they came up with the figures. What do they consider to be a "typical/average person with Type 1 (or type 2) diabetes"?
I assume it is based on historical data but has it been "adjusted" to take into consideration the massive advancements in diabetes management that will not be included in that history?
Last edited:
AndBreathe
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
QRisk is useless in my view.
If I state non-diabetic, my score is 8.5% (against an average healthy bod at 10%). If I declare my single diabetic level A1c, leading to a T2 diagnosis, my score almost doubles to 15.2%. In both instances, my BMI of 18.7 is discounted, as it is outside the calculator's range, and I am "awarded" a BMI of 20.
All in all, it'd probably be as useful as licking my finger and lifting it to the wind.
Of course, GPs do what their guidance tells them to, but when their justification is that "everyone in the US takes them, and my wife would take them if I told her to", it doesn't fill one with confidence.
Two good things about that last sentence. Firstly, that GP has retired, and secondly, we moved surgery to be a bit closer to home, when patient/GP ratios at the old place just got silly.
AB - contentedly statin-free, but respects those who do their own research and reach whatever decision they choose.
If I state non-diabetic, my score is 8.5% (against an average healthy bod at 10%). If I declare my single diabetic level A1c, leading to a T2 diagnosis, my score almost doubles to 15.2%. In both instances, my BMI of 18.7 is discounted, as it is outside the calculator's range, and I am "awarded" a BMI of 20.
All in all, it'd probably be as useful as licking my finger and lifting it to the wind.
Of course, GPs do what their guidance tells them to, but when their justification is that "everyone in the US takes them, and my wife would take them if I told her to", it doesn't fill one with confidence.
Two good things about that last sentence. Firstly, that GP has retired, and secondly, we moved surgery to be a bit closer to home, when patient/GP ratios at the old place just got silly.
AB - contentedly statin-free, but respects those who do their own research and reach whatever decision they choose.
Deb_l
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I was started on 10mg atorvastatin and not had any side effects. I've not been on them long so don't know how effective they have been yet. My cholesterol isn't massively high but had continued to creep up and I have a pretty rubbish family history of heart disease and vascular issues.
Inka
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
I’m sure I found out an answer to that a while ago when I was questioning the QRisk too. I can’t remember exactly, but it’s true that the Type 1 risk appears to be higher. For women with Type 1 after the menopause, for example, I’m sure I read the risk is 11 times higher. It was a scary figure. I think it was partly due to a potential wider range of blood sugar movement, inflammation and something else I can’t recall.
The QRisk thing is a blunt tool because it’s aimed at groups of people not individuals, but there does seem to be an increased risk. Depressing but true. I too have done the QRisk pretending I don’t have Type 1 and got a lovely 3%. It’s annoying and upsetting to add on the Type 1 and see the risk shoot up.
ETA - the thing I couldn’t remember is the immune system @helli as suggested in this:
.