Us old Type 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JonathanGi

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Pronouns
He/Him
I was told recently to increase my HbA1c as I am now considered elderly - I am 66.
I can't find any relevant information regarding this. Has anyone else been advised to do this?
I also can't find any reason for doing this. I was told, rather coyly I felt, that I might fall down the stairs whilst having a hypo at night.
 
JonathanGi said:
I was told, rather coyly I felt, that I might fall down the stairs whilst having a hypo at night.
Click to expand...
I'd assume that's why: they're worried about hypos. The targets were always a bit more relaxed for older people. This feels like one of those things that'll probably be revised so I'd ignore it (unless you are having issues with hypos, obviously).
 
I think part of it is that I can't find any research that says this might be a good thing. In fact I have found the opposite. There was a piece in the American diabetic association saying don't relax control. I was just wondering whether anyone else has had this suggested.
I have very few hypos. I get very good signs. I have only had 1 hypo after 57 years that has required help from a third party.
Could be luck but my BG rarely seems to fall very quickly as I know others experience.
Thanks.
 
Bruce Stephens said:
Yes, HbA1c is a way to guess at how much low BG you're having, but almost all of us now have devices that can measure it directly, so surely using that's much better.
Click to expand...

Yes that time in range data is invaluable, own clinic doesn't focus so much now on Hba1c but still request it annually, that also might change in time.
 
Bruce Stephens said:
Yes, HbA1c is a way to guess at how much low BG you're having, but almost all of us now have devices that can measure it directly, so surely using that's much better.
Click to expand...
Back in the pre-sensor days, I was told that my low A1c meant, (wrongly surmised by the DSN.) “you must be having lots of hypos.”
With the advent of sensors. (Excluding any compression lows or the lag in reflection of comming up from a real one. Which I flag on the log.) “time in range” I’d agree logically seems a better assessment with regards to management.
 
I found this in The Lancet @JonathanGi . My bold:

For older adults, a time in range (3·9–10·0 mmol/L)] target of more than 50% and a time below range (<3·9 mmol/L) target of less than 1% are recommended.
5 To date, these recommendations are the sole guidance for CGM targets pertaining to older adults.
 
The more relevant citation is, of course, the study itself, which is here. Not sure if that was what you were looking for?:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range - PubMed

Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

.
 
Inka said:
The link is in my post, Satan. If you’d have clicked it, it would have taken you straight to the page and saved you some frantic copying and pasting into Google. That’s what that little number 5 is in it - a link.
Click to expand...
Sneaky number five. Thanks. I’m more an “https” sorta guy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top