Re: [IPk] Definition of a hypo
A hypo is generally defined as below 4. Below 2.8 people are perceived to be
There are severe hypos, where the person requires 3rd party assistance & what I
term "major hypos" where consciousness & breathing are impaired.
The problem with lower hypo thresholds is that you can train the brain to
regard low blood sugar as normal.
As these problems are caused by the trial, surely they should fund a CGMS, like
a Dexcom. If you are detecting a hypo a day, what's happening at night when
Are the hypos all at the same time of day?
On 5 Dec 2013, at 22:04, "Gareth Hicks" <email @ redacted> wrote:
> My wife Jean is the T1 in our house, it's now been 48 yrs - and a pumper for
> last 5yrs.
> She's now almost a year into a 3 yr trial (Removal) which I understand is
> to assess how metformin might be used in T1 treatment (as against T2) to
> mitigate diabetic complications (and make insulin more effective?).
> It's a blind trial so we don't know for sure whether she's on metformin or
> not, but have a suspicion that she is.
> That's because we've seen many more 'technical hypos' since she started on
> it, sometimes daily.
> These are virtually ALL between 2 and 3, her hypo setting is 3.3
> I said 'technical' because she has no really obvious symptoms these days,
> not above 2 anyway.
> Aside from the administration of the trial itself, Jean's diabetic
> consultant and GP are now concerned about hypo frequency and are suggesting
some more fasting tests.
> Whilst this is OK in theory, our experience is that we can fiddle about with
> basal settings to out heart's delight but historically have eventually ended
> up roughly where we started.
> That's an over simplification, and we did make some 'trial and error' basal
> shortly after the Removal trial started, but you get my point.
> I'm not saying we resist fasting per se, just wondering whether the hypo
related criteria for doing so is 100% relevant to her.
> We are in fact already more actively using temporary basal reductions when
> edging downwards, especially last thing at night.
> And using longer acting carbs when sorting out a hypo, something we haven't
> been too good at admittedly.
> Her latest HbA1c is 6.3 compared with 7.5 - 8 in pre pump days.
> Considering Jean's age, the advice we have received from our consultant in
> the past, and listened to, is not to consider a much lower HbA1c than say 7
> a target in any sense.
> Implying that avoiding hypos is now more relevant for her.
> We have, about 6 months ago, adjusted the bolus settings and the insulin
sensitivity factor and I am (fairly)
> happy they are Ok where they are.
> I have no idea now where the 'under 3.3 qualifying line' for hypos came
> from, perhaps set by the DSN when Jean first had a pump.
> My question, do other pumpers use a different definition of a hypo, and if
> so does anyone know how these are worked out?
> Or is a standardised definition being used?
> My growing and uninformed, concern, despite there being no obvious
> symptoms, is that frequent hypos (as currently defined) are causing longer
> underlying harm, unnecessarily.
> Gareth Hicks .
> Follow us at https://www.twitter.com/insulinpumpers
> Make a long URL short at http://type1.org
for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe/change list versions,
Follow us at https://www.twitter.com/insulinpumpers
Make a long URL short at http://type1.org