steve_okc said:

A1C went from 7.4 to 5.6 over nine months and my prescriber was more interested in the fasting insulin, which I did not expect.

Patient selection optimization for glycaemic control: emerging predictive biomarkers for GLP-1 agonist response include:

The 4-week early responder criterion is the most clinically actionable: if you haven't lost ≥3% by week 4 at a therapeutic dose, discuss optimization strategies with your provider.

PharmD_Rodriguez said:

Patient selection optimization for glycaemic control: emerging predictive biomarkers for GLP-1 agonist response include: Biomarker Association…

My labs after 9 months on glycaemic control: A1C 6.3%, fasting glucose 93 mg/dL, fasting insulin 8 uIU/mL. My endo says these are "textbook perfect."

For context, my baseline A1C was 8.1% and fasting glucose was 138 mg/dL. The improvement has been dramatic and consistent.

steve_okc said:

A1C went from 7.4 to 5.6 over nine months and my prescriber was more interested in the fasting insulin, which I did not expect.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.

Glycemic variability as the key metric for glycaemic control success: my coefficient of variation (CV) on CGM dropped from 37% to 18%. Target is <36%, with <30% being ideal.

Why this matters more than average glucose: large glucose swings cause oxidative stress, endothelial damage, and promote advanced glycation end-products (AGEs). A flat glucose line at 95 mg/dL is metabolically healthier than oscillating between 60 and 160, even if the average is the same.