<snip>
>>>> The A1c test measures something in red blood cells
>>>> so if there aren't enough of them, the number drops.
>>>
>>> Are you guessing or is there a cite for this?
>> I posted the cite in an earlier message.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>That's the opposite of what you are saying.
Hi Just
I don't recall Bob mentioning the form of his anemia. All he
said was "The doctor said my test for anemic was 7 and
should be 12." I'm no expert on anemia - does that indicate
that his is related to iron-deficiency?
The site Jenny referenced said this:
"Shortened Erythrocyte Survival: Any condition that shortens
erythrocyte survival or decreases mean erythrocyte age
(e.g., recovery from acute blood loss, hemolytic anemia)
will falsely lower GHB test results regardless of the assay
method used (25)."
And also this:
"Iron-deficiency anemia is reported to increase test results
(28)."
So the anemia type is very relevant. In either case - the
A1c result is unreliable as an indicator of his diabetes
control.
Bob had a typo which complicated the issue - there is a vast
difference in control between average FBGs of 183 and 83.
I wasn't aware of the reference, and found it very
interesting. Do you have some further references to increase
our knowledge in this aspect of A1c accuracy?
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg

Signature
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
Jenny - 09 Mar 2006 00:12 GMT
> Bob had a typo which complicated the issue - there is a vast
> difference in control between average FBGs of 183 and 83.
>
> I wasn't aware of the reference, and found it very
> interesting. Do you have some further references to increase
> our knowledge in this aspect of A1c accuracy?
I just pulled that one out of Google, but the subject is discussed in
some detail in Gretchen Becker's "The First Year: Type 2 Diabetes" book.
--Jenny
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes Diabetes Info
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control