|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 26, 2019 22:01:42 GMT -5
And actually, no, a lower standard deviation is not always better. If some treatment were to result in everyone tightly grouped around 8.5% A1c, that's not at all a good outcome despite having low standard deviation. This is the difference between micro and macro CV complications. Running high causes one, and large standard deviations cause the other. I can never remember which way around it goes though.
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Aug 26, 2019 22:37:57 GMT -5
And actually, no, a lower standard deviation is not always better. If some treatment were to result in everyone tightly grouped around 8.5% A1c, that's not at all a good outcome despite having low standard deviation. This is the difference between micro and macro CV complications. Running high causes one, and large standard deviations cause the other. I can never remember which way around it goes though. But I'm really talking about standard deviation in the A1c achieved by a cohort of trial patients, not the standard deviation of a particular person's BG readings. Though I'd be interested in what you are stating and wonder which it is. Seems like it could be interrelated. Having a really good A1c with high variance of BG readings would undoubtedly mean lots of hypos and perhaps not terribly high hyper events whereas a high variance coupled with bad A1c might mean not a lot of time in range and hyper episodes ranging from bad to really bad, but with few if any hypos.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 27, 2019 7:26:35 GMT -5
This is the difference between micro and macro CV complications. Running high causes one, and large standard deviations cause the other. I can never remember which way around it goes though. But I'm really talking about standard deviation in the A1c achieved by a cohort of trial patients, not the standard deviation of a particular person's BG readings. Though I'd be interested in what you are stating and wonder which it is. Seems like it could be interrelated. Having a really good A1c with high variance of BG readings would undoubtedly mean lots of hypos and perhaps not terribly high hyper events whereas a high variance coupled with bad A1c might mean not a lot of time in range and hyper episodes ranging from bad to really bad, but with few if any hypos. This is a good explanation of SD and CV targets independent (largely) of HbA1c - diatribe.org/understanding-average-glucose-standard-deviation-cv-and-blood-sugar-variability
|
|