Dr.NateNeph said:

HbA1c reflects roughly three months of average glycaemia weighted toward the most recent weeks, which is why repeating it at six weeks tells you very…

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Small molecule does not automatically mean cheap. Price is set by what the market will bear and by patent life, not by cost of goods, and I would not assume the savings reach patients.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Because it is glucose-dependent, this class carries a low intrinsic hypoglycaemia risk on its own — the risk arrives when it is combined with insulin or a sulfonylurea, which usually need reducing.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

mike_nyc said:

Small molecule does not automatically mean cheap.

Coming at mike_nyc’s question from a different direction. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.

Following on from gary_naperville — and this may be the naive question:

Why A1C lags the way it does, and what to look at in the meantime if you want to know sooner?

Closing the loop on my own question.

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.