101 Federal Street, Suite 440
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-892-6100
Email: admin@t1dexchange.org
© 2023 T1D Exchange. All Rights Reserved.
I use my pump on my tummy
7.6 was my A. 1c
This is a group with amazing control compared to the average T1d. Way to go!!
5.8, eight months ago. I was my Endo this week, and she ordered the wrong set of blood tests. So, I did not get my most recent A1c. I expected it was going to be lower than 5.8.
“Saw,” not “was.”
I’ve largely quit putting any stock on A1c and am more focused on TIR.
6.0 earlier this month.
Three months ago it was 7.2; will have it drawn this coming Monday since the past Monday – my in person appointment turned into a Zoom appointment due to Missouri being an ice skating rink.
My A1c was tested at 6.6, but I think that’s too low. (especially considering I had a bottle of bad insulin and a steroid shot in my elbow that wreaked havoc on my bses!) My doctor asked if I was anemic, but tests for that last year were negative… so, ? Dunno why it wasn’t in the expected range, but it was!
Although manufacturers have been able to get many in the medical community to change the emphasis from the a1C to TIR (using the integrated-automated system’s more “hands off” approach) I still hold the studies (DCCT and EDIC: below 7) and the AACE (American Association of Clinical Endocrinology: below 6.5) versus the “80-180” or “70-180” approach. Every society admits risks of hypoglycemia emphasizing a lower threshold, TIR hasn’t been studied long enough utilizing the CGM/insulin pump system to verify the long-term advantage except the decrease of hypoglycemia.
A 70% TIR. (70-180) is considered successful by most systems regardless of the a1C, while the DCCT indicated the reduction of diabetic complications of only 60% with an a1C 7 compared to one of 9… meaning an a1C of 7 offers a 1/3 probability of an effect from diabetes comparatively. The endocrinological association uses the 6.5 by office experience and results, to me means a lower a1C with minimal hypoglycemia has more benefits than the TIR alone (the NIH suggests “civilians” {non-diabetics} experience blood sugars below 70 up to 7% of the time without symptoms although injecting man-made insulin has its risks).
I shoot for as low a1C without serious low levels, utilizing the Medtronic 780G system: last a1C was 5.7 with 4% lows (below 70), and 85-90% TIR (as indicated 70-180). According to my present CGM history “average” glucose appears to be 117 (a1C at 5.7? consistency there!), TIR of 86%, lows of 5%, and deviation 31 (suggested 1/3 of average so good?) so pretty stable! And um…. this control has little interference in my life. (my alarms are set 70-130…)
My most recent A1c was back in October. In January I have a telehealth appointment and don’t usually do any bloodwork although we could.
This poll is misleading. I don’t think the sample really represents all T1’s, as this is obviously a group of more motivated individuals than the general T1 population. Most studies show that the average A1C is over 7.0 but that’s ALL T1’s, not just those who are more actively involved in their diabetes management.
The reported figures are better than expected. Good for you. I wonder if some are using the “estimated” A1C (or GMI) provide by your CGM or the actual A1C measure with blood.