C
Carl & Polly & Bob (GA)
Guest
I'm posting this not as a PZI poster, but as a "Moderator". Earlier today, I saw a post by "Bandit" that caught my attention and that is what leads me to posting this.
There continues to be some confusion on the whole FDMB board on occasion about the differences between numbers on a human meter, and what numbers on a pet specific meter like an AT meter "mean".
Most of us, over the years have used human meters. Lately there seems to be a lot of people arriving with an AT meter already in hand. There have been threads in several forums about coming up with some sort of "conversion" chart, or a nice clear listing that shows what an AT number converts to on a human meter.
I understand why people feel this might be a good thing to have around. But if you haven't noticed, the "moderators" have been unanimously opposed to advocating any such "conversion chart", and are not likely to ever endorse one that would be posted on the board for use by caregivers or anyone who advises other members. As a group, the moderators are even opposed to someone developing such a chart and "sharing it" with others by way of putting it in their signature, or providing a link to one in any manner.
The reason for that is simple. There currently is no documented scientific study that supports such a chart. There may be people who have tested one meter against the other, and collected their data. And that's great for "individual" use if that's what they choose to do. But compiling data collected in a home environment is not a "lab study".
The "thing" that gets tossed around a lot is "there's roughly a 30 point difference between an AT and human meter". That's what my vet told me. And I've seen it posted a hundred times at least, and I'm sure I've posted it myself before for that matter.
But - this is one of those things that is said so often, that it has become "true" somehow.
In fact, it isn't known to be true at all. The ONLY time it may have been valid information was in one specific instance.
The Tight Regulation protocol for Lantus/Levemir, at one time, said that for users of a pet meter, the difference between it and a human meter should be considered as 30 points. But, it was only referring to "The Target Range", and only when considering a dose reduction when the nadir had dropped below a specific number. On a human number, FOR THOSE FOLLOWING THE TR PROTOCOL ONLY, the number that indicates a reduction being given is "50" on a human meter. On an AT meter, the number was "80".
2 years ago, those guidelines were updated by the authors of the protocol. They revised the pet-meter "reduction" number to "68". The "human meter number" remains at 50. This still only applies to those that follow the TR protocol. And no other number, or range of numbers, was mentioned.
Today, a caregiver here in PZI saw a 66 on an AT2 meter. In that thread, he commented that by adding 30 points, it was a 96, so still a safe number. I happened to stumble over the thread, saw that, and immediately posted in the thread. He had read the "add 30 points" at some time prior to today, and I guess misunderstood whether to add or subtract 30 points? I am not sure. But the point is, his cat had a below normal BG, only an hour after feeding and giving a dose of 2u. His cat was "in danger of hypo", but he didn't realize it at that point in time. The situation could have gone really badly, really quickly. Thankfully it did not do that.
So please, everyone. Stop tossing the "30 points" thing out there. Nobody knows what the difference is. Each caregiver using a pet meter should talk to their vet, or to the maker of the meter, and ask them if there is a "conversion" number from your meter to human numbers. Even then, I would be skeptical about how they arrived at that conclusion.
The majority of caregivers here use human meters. It's always been that way, and it will always be that way. All of our protocols and guidelines are set up using human meter numbers. The only people with experience with pet meters are those that use them. Our SS templates are set up to use human meter numbers. 90% or more of the people who look at questions, numbers and spreadsheets use or have used human meters. Our "mindset" is on human meter numbers.
We ask people to put "AT meter" in their sig, and/or make it obvious on their spreadsheets, so that it can be seen by all who choose to offer advice or suggestions.
The AlphaTrack meter is believed to run a little higher than human meters. When following the TR Protocol, Roomp & Rand have recommended adding a cushion for AT users dealing with lower readings on the lower end of the low range. Reductions should be taken at 68 (AT) instead of 50 (human meter).
Users of other insulins and methods should consider an appropriate safety margin. That would apply to everyone here in the PZI forum.
There continues to be some confusion on the whole FDMB board on occasion about the differences between numbers on a human meter, and what numbers on a pet specific meter like an AT meter "mean".
Most of us, over the years have used human meters. Lately there seems to be a lot of people arriving with an AT meter already in hand. There have been threads in several forums about coming up with some sort of "conversion" chart, or a nice clear listing that shows what an AT number converts to on a human meter.
I understand why people feel this might be a good thing to have around. But if you haven't noticed, the "moderators" have been unanimously opposed to advocating any such "conversion chart", and are not likely to ever endorse one that would be posted on the board for use by caregivers or anyone who advises other members. As a group, the moderators are even opposed to someone developing such a chart and "sharing it" with others by way of putting it in their signature, or providing a link to one in any manner.
The reason for that is simple. There currently is no documented scientific study that supports such a chart. There may be people who have tested one meter against the other, and collected their data. And that's great for "individual" use if that's what they choose to do. But compiling data collected in a home environment is not a "lab study".
The "thing" that gets tossed around a lot is "there's roughly a 30 point difference between an AT and human meter". That's what my vet told me. And I've seen it posted a hundred times at least, and I'm sure I've posted it myself before for that matter.
But - this is one of those things that is said so often, that it has become "true" somehow.
In fact, it isn't known to be true at all. The ONLY time it may have been valid information was in one specific instance.
The Tight Regulation protocol for Lantus/Levemir, at one time, said that for users of a pet meter, the difference between it and a human meter should be considered as 30 points. But, it was only referring to "The Target Range", and only when considering a dose reduction when the nadir had dropped below a specific number. On a human number, FOR THOSE FOLLOWING THE TR PROTOCOL ONLY, the number that indicates a reduction being given is "50" on a human meter. On an AT meter, the number was "80".
2 years ago, those guidelines were updated by the authors of the protocol. They revised the pet-meter "reduction" number to "68". The "human meter number" remains at 50. This still only applies to those that follow the TR protocol. And no other number, or range of numbers, was mentioned.
Today, a caregiver here in PZI saw a 66 on an AT2 meter. In that thread, he commented that by adding 30 points, it was a 96, so still a safe number. I happened to stumble over the thread, saw that, and immediately posted in the thread. He had read the "add 30 points" at some time prior to today, and I guess misunderstood whether to add or subtract 30 points? I am not sure. But the point is, his cat had a below normal BG, only an hour after feeding and giving a dose of 2u. His cat was "in danger of hypo", but he didn't realize it at that point in time. The situation could have gone really badly, really quickly. Thankfully it did not do that.
So please, everyone. Stop tossing the "30 points" thing out there. Nobody knows what the difference is. Each caregiver using a pet meter should talk to their vet, or to the maker of the meter, and ask them if there is a "conversion" number from your meter to human numbers. Even then, I would be skeptical about how they arrived at that conclusion.
The majority of caregivers here use human meters. It's always been that way, and it will always be that way. All of our protocols and guidelines are set up using human meter numbers. The only people with experience with pet meters are those that use them. Our SS templates are set up to use human meter numbers. 90% or more of the people who look at questions, numbers and spreadsheets use or have used human meters. Our "mindset" is on human meter numbers.
We ask people to put "AT meter" in their sig, and/or make it obvious on their spreadsheets, so that it can be seen by all who choose to offer advice or suggestions.
The AlphaTrack meter is believed to run a little higher than human meters. When following the TR Protocol, Roomp & Rand have recommended adding a cushion for AT users dealing with lower readings on the lower end of the low range. Reductions should be taken at 68 (AT) instead of 50 (human meter).
Users of other insulins and methods should consider an appropriate safety margin. That would apply to everyone here in the PZI forum.
