7/18 Honey AMPS 232, +6 78, +7 78, PMPS 320, +2 269

It would be good to see some more blue and green nadirs during the daytime cycle. I would be striving for BG=100 if possible during those daytime values. I'm worried about potential neuropathy and other high-BG situations if Honey does not get some lower nadirs. You could try the reduction and see how Honey does.

Leo used to get prednisolone. I dosed higher in A.M. and a bit lower in P.M. because pred is a gluco-corticoid. So that worked in his situation. Variable dosing across cycles is not perfect with these depot insulins. There is the caveat.

The big thing I like about your diabetic care - you are keeping Honey safe. That is the main goal.:bighug::bighug::bighug:
 
Well, if prior to today’s readings had used human meter I am sure a lot of yellows would have been blue and some recent blues would have been green. That is the only problem with using a human meter...
 
Julie and Honey said:
Well, if prior to today’s readings had used human meter I am sure a lot of yellows would have been blue and some recent blues would have been green. That is the only problem with using a human meter...
Click to expand...
I think you’re right about the human meter. When you start using that you just see “better” numbers, but really they’re not as accurate numbers. It’s hard to remember when you’re comparing everyone’s numbers that the meter makes a difference.

In the end, I switched because I didn’t want to pay so much for strips or run out and have to order by mail. It’s worth keeping the pet meter strips around when accuracy is really important, though.
 
Margie and Jackson said:
I think you’re right about the human meter. When you start using that you just see “better” numbers, but really they’re not as accurate numbers. It’s hard to remember when you’re comparing everyone’s numbers that the meter makes a difference.

In the end, I switched because I didn’t want to pay so much for strips or run out and have to order by mail. It’s worth keeping the pet meter strips around when accuracy is really important, though.
Click to expand...
Same here, can’t afford it unless I am working and even then I hate spending more money. The protocols here were developed for human meter numbers, which seems to work, I just hate using technically inaccurate data for any reason. I report data to my vet weekly as far as lowest nadir, I can check with AT if I see a low number such as today, but that may not be enough data for the vet. She pretty much goes along with my suggestions on dosing, but I really don’t want to give her human meter numbers because she it putting this info in my cats records and I don’t want inaccurate data in records. I have taken several human vs AT readings at major numbers such as 400, 300, 200, 100, so I have a reference for her if it is close to those, guess that is better than nothing..
 
It is also good to recall that each BG test can be off by 20% on any meter. The BG test gives us a nice spot test, and general range. For example a BG test = 100 could be
80 at the lowest end of error
120 at the highest end of error

There could be variations beyond that as well. I think we are all fortunate to have this technology. Last year I did an informal survey on FDMB. It wasn't perfect. It does not seem that any of these spot meters were available before 1985 for animals. And the spot meters probably were not commonly available until after 1995.
 
JeffJ said:
It is also good to recall that each BG test can be off by 20% on any meter. The BG test gives us a nice spot test, and general range. For example a BG test = 100 could be
80 at the lowest end of error
120 at the highest end of error

There could be variations beyond that as well. I think we are all fortunate to have this technology. Last year I did an informal survey on FDMB. It wasn't perfect. It does not seem that any of these spot meters were available before 1985 for animals. And the spot meters probably were not commonly available until after 1995.
Click to expand...
Supposedly the human meter I got had studies on their meter and strips and it uses a technology that is supposed to take certain things into consideration and make adjustments, ie. Humidity, etc. their strips were proven tested at 15% +/-, so I guess that helps a little if it is actually true...

Excerpt:

“The results from the AgaMatrix product were as good or better than leading brands on the market, with 97% of results within ±15% or ±15 mg/dl of the lab reference in > 95% of trials.”
 
I'm a perfectionist to a fault, so it frustrates me to know we have to make these decisions with imperfect data, whether pet or human, but we have to accept it I suppose. There is also disparity between the capillary blood we draw from the ear and an intravenous blood draw at the vet...I took a reading on my alphatrak during our Tuesday vet visit and got 422. Their number was 361!
Anyway, I relate.
 
That is interesting Julie. Still 15% variation leads to
100 - BG test
85 - possible lowest actual value
115 - possible highest actual value

My goal with Leo was to get him to 100. To get him a break from high numbers. But he bounced around. I was always envious of some of the near perfect charts here. Chris and China had perfect numbers almost every day.
 
JeffJ said:
That is interesting Julie. Still 15% variation leads to
100 - BG test
85 - possible lowest actual value
115 - possible highest actual value

My goal with Leo was to get him to 100. To get him a break from high numbers. But he bounced around. I was always envious of some of the near perfect charts here. Chris and China had perfect numbers almost every day.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this one is a bouncer too.

Anything with more than a 5% variance really bugs me. If something cannot be produced within those guidelines they should not be allowed to sell it to the public. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Shoddy manufacturing processes.
 
Well, for the BG testers, I would bet it is just the delivery of a cost effective solution that people will buy. If the testers were $500, then the market would be smaller for the product. I think a lot of the market (the purchasers) are budget constrained.
 
JeffJ said:
Well, for the BG testers, I would bet it is just the delivery of a cost effective solution that people will buy. If the testers were $500, then the market would be smaller for the product. I think a lot of the market (the purchasers) are budget constrained.
Click to expand...
Yeah, probably right, but why does inexpensive need to mean close but we just didn’t quite get it? I am just so sick of all of the bad products and bad service. If you are not going to do something well, what is the point? I used to point out to teachers that on tests some of the multiple choice answers were too ambiguous which made more than one answer technically correct depending on circumstances of the scenario. Apparently I was over thinking, lol. Of course teachers also may not have liked to be corrected by a 10 year old...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top