Holy Crap.

I keep taking my pulse. This darn thing scared the bejesus out of me.

I mean, give me a break. They put you in a protocol that is supposed to be saving lives, studying the affect diabetes has on the cardiovascular system, etc. etc.

I actually did better than I was supposed to. I got lower readings, my blood pressure is just fine, I went down on my meds. My a1c is better than the goal they set for me. They have no explanation, and as they put it "Melody, this is great for you, but not so good for the protocol you are in". We all had a good laugh (this was many months ago, because I go there usually every 2 months or so. And they give me a yearly BIG physical.

This friday is the BIG one!!! Marks the 2 year thing or something to that effect.

Thank goodness I wasn't in the intensive part of it. They told me "your body responded as if it were in the intensive part of the protocol, but you are actually in the Standard part".

I'll definitely ask some questions on Friday.

It ends in the spring of 2009. I mean, they are very good to me, take great care, (because I listened to every thing they told me to do), I took my meds faithfully and my sugar reading was better for it.

So how come 257 people died???

oh my!!

Mel, what is your A1c level?

Diabetics do die you know. They are not stable physiologically and have a shortened life span due to the damage the disease does to blood vessels.
This article did not clarify stroke -- thrombotic or hemorrhagic either.
So until the data is written up more clearly, it is hard to answer.

It is frightening to learn how much doctors don't know or understand. I wouldn't get all upset over this, since you appear to be doing well. If you were not so bad to start with, you may not have had the damage present already.
Some of those patients may have been really in poor shape.

from http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4750723&EDATE=

It is a complex issue. The answer will take alot of time to be forthcoming, I predict.

Hi Mrs. D.

Oh, I forgot to mention that when I INITIALLY TRIED TO GET INTO THE STUDY, my a1c was 7 and I was turned down. It was explained to me that I needed an a1c of 7.5 to be admitted to the study.

Because I was self-medicating with food at the time, and not really doing a good job of managing my blood sugar, it was almost a year later when I went back and my a1c was 9.0. So they took me in the study.

When I went into the study, my sugar was 400 (because I shoveled snow). But it usually was 265 or so. I was on lots of metformin (which killed my stomach). Thank the lord I was able to stop the metformin. I stopped going to the bathroom 6 times in the morning. It didn't make me lose weight either. I had been on it for years before I got to the ACCORD program and I never lost any weight on Metformin.

So I joined the study, they put me in the standard group. I was also put on Vytorin but my muscles did NOT LIKE THIS MED, so I stopped after a few months.

I'm in the intensive blood pressure group (I think they only have an intensive blood pressure group). They tweaked my blood pressure meds because they believe a person who has diabetes is greater risk for stroke and heart attack so while a regular person might have 120/70, they REALLY LIKE WHEN MY PRESSURE IS 106/65.

They walk in and say "wow, look at those numbers"!!! I once said "isn't that low??" and they said: "are you kidding, your pressure is perfect".

I've never had a problem with my pressure since I've been going there.

They take it 3 times and then they average it out.

And I can refuse any thing I don't want to take.

But so far, I'm doing okay, so I thank god.

I have noticed that when I'm there, I see other diabetics getting their checkups. These are always woman and they are over 250 lbs. They are ALL on humolog, or novalog or some kind of insulin. Now I don't know if they are in the Accord Program like me, but they are always there.

I once read where you can be a type 2 and be on insulin (not like the Lantus that I'm on). But on the ones where you take a shot before you eat.

Lantus is not like that.

I still have goals. I'd like to be off all insulin. Hey, I'm 60 and I'm entitled to my goals. If I can do it, I'll do it. They seem to feel it's not such an impossible goal to achieve.

Time will Tell!!!

I know many Type 2's and they are on a lot more meds than I am on, plus they are on Cholesterol meds, and oral meds, and high blood pressure meds (I know some people who take 2 or 3 blood pressure meds a day.

I have a 63 year old neighbor who is on 11 pills a day (3 of which are high blood pressure meds), She's on 3 different oral diabetes meds, and her sugar reading is always over 200. ALWAYS!! The other day it was 265.
Then it got down to 175 and she called me and said 'My sugar is really good now, it's 175". and I just said "why on earth do you consider 175 good"??

And she said: "well, you know me, I'm usually 265, so 175 is good for me". She is over 300 lbs and she could have gone to the Accord study with me but she didn't want to go into NYC.

You know what confuses me. The people on the Biggest Loser.

They go in there saying "I was borderline diabetic, or they say "I'm diabetic", then they lose all their weight and then they say "I"m no longer diabetic".

Hey, I lost TONS OF WEIGHT. How come I'm still diabetic??.

Guess I'm too old at 60, huh???

Forgot to mention, at my last blood work, my a1c was 6.5

a long acting maintenance dose like Lantus.

And some people need a bolus with meals. These people have to count carbs,
so they can inject the correct amount.

Some people need both, and others don't.

Some people are very brittle and hard to control. I used to work with a nurse and supervisor who were younger than me, with type II who had to use the insulin pump.

There are many variations to controlling Type II. Many type II people can be controlled well, with diet and exercise, if they are good at compliance.

Good at Compliance??? I'm so good at compliance that I think it's a bonus if I get to eat half an orange. That's a treat for me.

Oh, you asked if the people at Accord cared if I was on B-12.

Not only do they NOT care. When I mentioned that my feet seemed to be better in the burning aspect of my neuropathy, it was mentioned "this has more to do with your good glucose control than the fact that you are on B-12'.

So you can FORGET B-12 as far as physicians are concerned.

As a matter of fact, the only physician who was actually interested in hearing more about B-12 Methyl, was the neurologist who came to one of the Neuropathy Support Group meetings.

She said "I would never NOT be interested in anything anyone has to say about how they deal with their neuropathy. We learn new stuff every day"!!!

And this was a young woman who was specializing in Neuropathy.

She has been (to my knowledge) the only physician I have ever spoken to about Methyl B-12, and believe me there have been plenty, she's the only one who actually LISTENED.

Everybody else either said "I don't believe it" one guy actually said "it's only for Anemia, and I WOULD NEVER PRESCRIBE B-12 FOR NERVE DAMAGE". He actually said that.

Mind boggling.

How can physicians not LEARN as they PRACTICE. I mean, we learn new stuff every day.

It's all over the news I thought it might be your program but wasn't sure.
The one part was lowering the insulin level and caused some to died
from heart problems. Just like when I was on Advanta for a shoet time,
I called my dr. told her hold my insulin level had dropped to 60
she got me right off and had me keep eye on blood pressure. They had
the Dr. over the program,he said well we learned something,we were doing
this wrong.but he are the program would not name the meds not on the
show I saw. There was a patiient hhe name was Williams ,who was in the
group where some people died,they said everybody would be on the
program tha had no problems..When it drops that low you can feel it.
Sue

I have no answers but I thought I'd post a link to the nearly completed Australian ADVANCE study which also enrolled 10K+ type II diabetic patients like the ACCORD study. The mortality results between the two studies differ considerably, i.e. the ADVANCE study did not see the same link between agressive treatment and death so there is general agreement among the clinicians that the two studies will need to be compared critically to assess the reasons for the outcomes. In the interim the Australian Docs were going to continue treating their patients as before.
One of the ACCORD study directors herself noted that the results could be related to the meds each patient was using at the time - an issue that has been repeatedly pointed out on this forum and others like it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...0080213?rpc=44

"There are some differences between the ACCORD and the ADVANCE studies. We will need to communicate about the data with each other to understand what those differences are," Dr. Denise Simons-Morton, project officer for ACCORD at NHLBI, said in a telephone interview.
"The data I would like to see are exactly what drugs people were on, what were the mortality rates ..." she said.

Alkymst