Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / December 2006
Pontential Diabetic
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Puckertoe - 07 Dec 2006 15:27 GMT Greetings Folks,
I suspect I'm diabetic. I guess some quick history:
Week 44 of 48 week treatment from hepatitis c. During that time on Prednisone for a month. Glucose levels through the roof >300 during routine bloodtests. Previous blood tests always showed in the normal range. This caused horrid thirst, non-stop eating, peeing, and blurred vision. The thirst only lasted for a night or so. The blurred vision for at least a month.
Vison, thirst, and such is all normal now. This happened about six months ago.
I've suspected that I'm now diabetic due to this so I bought a Rite-Aid meter and started taking tests.
The first fasting test showed 55, then two hours after eating 100, 105, and then 107.
What really concerns me now is that the last three morning tests showed 126, 142, and 133.
From what I've read this could be indicative of a Type II diabetic, correct? <<sigh>>
I know that my dr is the only one that can diagnose me, but I thought I'd come out here and find out what you folks thought.
BTW, I'm not very active at all due to the hep treatment. Not sure if that matters or not.
Thanks for any help,
-Puckertoe
Alice Faber - 07 Dec 2006 16:12 GMT > Greetings Folks, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Thanks for any help, Prednisone is known to raise blood sugar levels, and, alas, the effect doesn't always go away when the pred is stopped. The numbers you reported certainly suggest T2 diabetes, but you should call your doctor and discuss the matter with him or her.
 Signature "and the snark alert level has reached "fuschia"" ---zig zigalo homes in on the meat of the matter
coonskin@amestwp.com - 07 Dec 2006 17:00 GMT See:
'Adult Onset Diabetes Mellitus in Hepatitis C Virus Infection'
http://www.hcvadvocate.org/hcsp/articles/Azocar-1.html
oldal4865 - 07 Dec 2006 17:27 GMT >Greetings Folks, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >-Puckertoe You're right, you're not diabetic until a Doctor makes a formal diagnosis. That means you can buy life insurance now, but may not be able to in a while.
Some of the criteria a doctor should use for the diagnosis include:
1. Two sugars above 200 for any reason at any time, or
2. Fasting blood sugars above 126.
e.g.
Diabetes Care Volume 23 Supplement 1 American Diabetes Association: Clinical Practice Recommendations 2000
"DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR DIABETES MELLITUS The new criteria The diagnostic criteria for diabetes mellitus have been modified from those previously recommended by the NDDG (1) or WHO (2). The revised criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes are shown in Table 3. Three ways to diagnose diabetes are possible, and each must be confirmed, on a subsequent day, by any one of the three methods given in Table 3. For example, one instance of symptoms with casual plasma glucose >200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l), confirmed on a subsequent day by 1) FPG >126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l), 2) an OGTT with the 2-h postload value >200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l), or 3) symptoms with a casual plasma glucose >200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l), warrants the diagnosis of diabetes.. . ."
Sorry, but you look to be a full member of our Club (the Club nobody wants to join)
Diabetes is a progressive disease. Your symptoms suggest that you are in "The Standard Type 2 Diabetes Progression". Odds are, with symptoms such as you exhibit, that you will lose more and more control over your sugars as the disease progresses.
The standard attack on adult-onset diabetes is a lifestyle change. The weapons:
1. Lose fat lb, especially abdominal fat 2. Gain muscle lb 3. Exercise every day. The more vigorously the better, but every day is important 4. Reduce your carb intake; aim for slowly-digesting carb; spread your daily carb over several small meals.
If you want to read about "The Progression", try:
"The Progression and Natural History of Type 2 Diabetes"
A very good speech to doctors by an Endo, given at the 2001 ADA convention, presented at the URL shown below.
http://www.medscape.com/viewprogram/145
When you get to the site, select “The Progression and Natural History of Type 2 Diabetes” in the table of contents. Note the section on Macrovascular (damage leading to premature heart attack) complications on Slide 6 which starts an estimated 5 years before any symptoms, much less any statistical diagnosis. Note the extrapolation in Slide 9 which indicates that eye damage starts 6.5 years before diagnosis. Note the extrapolation on Slide 10 which indicates that damage to beta cells from high Insulin Resistance starts 10 years before diagnosis.
(Note: you have to register with Medscape but that's a good idea for any diabetic. They don't spam or sell your info and you can make up phony info anyway)
If you want to read a detailed approach to lifestyle changes, try Jennifer's advice to the newly diagnosed at
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm
Three cheers for the meter, et al. Most folks end up being ambushed by the disease. A couple of years of hidden high blood sugars can do serious damage to your eyes, kidneys, arteries and nerves. You have a fighting change to avoid most of that.
In any case, keep coming back. Diabetes is one of the odd diseases in which the patient does all the work and most of the management. The docs mostly sit on the sidelines, cheering us on and writing the occasional prescription. The more you learn about this disease and the faster you learn it, the better your chances for a long and pain-free life. Conversely, ignore the disease and the better your chances for a shortened, painful life.
One addenda: I don't understand the relationship between hepatitis and adult-onset Diabetes. My readings suggest that you may be a candidate for insulin injection at some point in time far sooner than typically expected by the majority of adult-onset diabetics. (Or I may be "all wet")
Don't shy away from the suggestion of insulin; it is not only a lifesaver; it makes your life much easier and more pleasant. When I first realized that I would need insulin injections, I almost threw up. By the second day, they were nothing special.
Reading the diabetes newsgroups (alt.support.diabetes, misc.health.diabetes) every night has produced substantial improvements in my health, my quality of life, and, I'm sure, my life expectancy. It can do the same for you.
Regards Old Al
rk - 07 Dec 2006 18:04 GMT : >Greetings Folks, : Some of the criteria a doctor should use for the diagnosis include: : : 1. Two sugars above 200 for any reason at any time, or : : 2. Fasting blood sugars above 126. still passing BAD info.. *sigh*
it is ANY SINGLE reading at ANY time over 200mg/dL or TWO fasting readings over 126mg/dL on different days.
"........ The following lab values are the ADA practice guidelines for the diagnosis of diabetes:
A random plasma glucose value of 200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/L) or more (in the presence of diabetes symptoms) A plasma glucose value of 126 mg/dl (7 mmol/L) or more An oral glucose plasma glucose value of 200 mg/dl or higher at 2 hours post-glucose load
The ADA also maintains that a definitive diabetes diagnosis requires a second positive test performed on a different day."
http://www.dlife.com/dLife/do/ShowContent/type2_information/diagnosis/diagnosis.html
Chris Malcolm - 07 Dec 2006 20:08 GMT > : >Greetings Folks, > : Some of the criteria a doctor should use for the diagnosis include: > : > : 1. Two sugars above 200 for any reason at any time, or > : > : 2. Fasting blood sugars above 126.
> still passing BAD info.. *sigh*
> it is ANY SINGLE reading at ANY time over 200mg/dL > or > TWO fasting readings over 126mg/dL on different days.
> "........ > The following lab values are the ADA practice guidelines for the diagnosis > of diabetes:
> A random plasma glucose value of 200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/L) or more (in the > presence of diabetes symptoms) > A plasma glucose value of 126 mg/dl (7 mmol/L) or more > An oral glucose plasma glucose value of 200 mg/dl or higher at 2 hours > post-glucose load
> The ADA also maintains that a definitive diabetes diagnosis requires a > second positive test performed on a different day."
> http://www.dlife.com/dLife/do/ShowContent/type2_information/diagnosis/diagnosis.html What you quote from the ADA doesn't support your single reading claim. Their recommendation is that any two of the your three cited tests must be exceeded with readings taken on different days, including the same test twice. Whether doctors follow their recommendation is another question...
 Signature Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
oldal4865 - 07 Dec 2006 21:41 GMT >> : >Greetings Folks, >> : Some of the criteria a doctor should use for the diagnosis include: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >including the same test twice. Whether doctors follow their >recommendation is another question... Here, read it again. Then if it doesn't take, read it again.
Diabetes Care Volume 23 Supplement 1 American Diabetes Association: Clinical Practice Recommendations 2000
"DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR DIABETES MELLITUS The new criteria The diagnostic criteria for diabetes mellitus have been modified from those previously recommended by the NDDG (1) or WHO (2). The revised criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes are shown in Table 3. Three ways to diagnose diabetes are possible, and each must be confirmed, on a subsequent day, by any one of the three methods given in Table 3. For example, one instance of symptoms with casual plasma glucose >200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l), confirmed on a subsequent day by 1) FPG >126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l), 2) an OGTT with the 2-h postload value >200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l), or 3) symptoms with a casual plasma glucose >200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l), warrants the diagnosis of diabetes.. . ."
Old Al
Alan S - 07 Dec 2006 22:29 GMT Was: Pontential Diabetic
<snip>
>Diabetes Care >Volume 23 Supplement 1 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Old Al Hi All
I changed the title because this is a subject basic to these groups.
A more current, later, version is below. The 2004 USA criteria are similar but not identical to the 2000 ones; note the qualifier re the OGTT.
"Main Article: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/27/suppl_1/s5#T2
Diabetes Care 27:S5-S10, 2004 © 2004 by the American Diabetes Association, Inc.
Position Statements Original Article
Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus"
This covers all types, and includes this Table:
Table 2— Criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/27/suppl_1/s5/T2
1. Symptoms of diabetes plus casual plasma glucose concentration 200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l). Casual is defined as any time of day without regard to time since last meal. The classic symptoms of diabetes include polyuria, polydipsia, and unexplained weight loss. or 2. FPG 126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l). Fasting is defined as no caloric intake for at least 8 h. or 3. 2-h postload glucose 200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l) during an OGTT. The test should be performed as described by WHO, using a glucose load containing the equivalent of 75 g anhydrous glucose dissolved in water.
In the absence of unequivocal hyperglycemia, these criteria should be confirmed by repeat testing on a different day. The third measure (OGTT) is not recommended for routine clinical use." Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Epidaurus
Chris Malcolm - 08 Dec 2006 11:25 GMT >>> : >Greetings Folks, >>> : Some of the criteria a doctor should use for the diagnosis include: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>including the same test twice. Whether doctors follow their >>recommendation is another question...
> Here, read it again. Then if it doesn't take, read it again.
> Diabetes Care > Volume 23 Supplement 1 > American Diabetes Association: > Clinical Practice Recommendations 2000
> "DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR DIABETES MELLITUS > The new criteria [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > postload value >200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l), or 3) symptoms with a casual plasma > glucose >200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l), warrants the diagnosis of diabetes.. . ." This appears to be addressed to me, and appears to suggest that I didn't understand the above. I think it quite unequivocally means what I said it did.
I'll try and phrase it more clearly and simply. There are three different tests. For diagnosis a positive test from any one of the three must be confirmed by another positive test from any one of the three taken on a subsequent day. One and one makes two.
If you disagree, perhaps you could deign to explain why.
 Signature Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
|
|
|