4 ms·

Ah I misread your comment — thought you were suggesting measuring A1C at home, which wouldn’t get you anything. Re-reading, you definitely meant measure blood g

Ah I misread your comment — thought you were suggesting measuring A1C at home, which wouldn’t get you anything. Re-reading, you definitely meant measure blood glucose itself. I do wonder if A1C remains a useful metric though, as perhaps it better captures the actual damage done by consistently high blood glucose. Would be interesting to see if there is research showing that CGM area under the curve is a better (or worse) predictor of clinical outcomes than A1C.

chimeracoder 3y ago
> I do wonder if A1C remains a useful metric though, as perhaps it better captures the actual damage done by consistently high blood glucose. Both metrics have their own use. Continuous glucose monitoring is better for measuring the short-term impact of interventions, but it's also more invasive (albeit less so than it used to be) and more expensive. HbA1C is still measured for diabetic patients who have continuous glucose monitoring. One downside of A1C is that the baseline values actually vary, and it's known to be either downward biased or a particularly lagging indicator for certain groups that are predisposed to Type 2 diabetes (e.g. South Asians and people of African descent).