small win: glycaemic control stopped being a problem at week 17
small win: glycaemic control stopped being a problem at week 17, logged the same way every week so the comparison is at least internally fair. Panicked over a first-day sensor reading and rebuilt my week around it. It was the sensor. Certain conditions affect A1c independently of glycaemia. If a result looks…
The diabetes and obesity programmes are separate, with different populations and different primary endpoints. Reading a result across from one to the other is not a comparison.
Small fix — insulin secretion in this class is glucose-dependent, which is precisely why the risk you describe comes from the other agent.
[removed by moderator]
Sensor accuracy varies across wear, and readings on the first day are the least reliable. Calibration practice and compression artefacts explain many alarming single values.
glycaemic control and weight are two different endpoints
glycaemic control and weight are two different endpoints
Agreed, and the glucose-dependence point is the reason the risk profile reads the way it does.
A1c, CGM, or fingersticks — which are we discussing?
Correcting myself: 21 weeks between those two A1c results, which is too short an interval to interpret.
Right, and the diabetes programmes report glycaemic endpoints. Quoting an obesity trial result here is answering a different question.