CryptoCarl said:

The single most useful discipline is bringing the whole panel to a clinician rather than one flagged value.

CryptoCarl has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Quarterly for the first year is convention rather than evidence, and it is defensible for a simple reason: it is roughly the interval over which HbA1c becomes informative again, since it reflects about three months of glycaemia. After the first year, and once doses are stable, annual is reasonable unless something specific is being followed.

CryptoCarl said:

The single most useful discipline is bringing the whole panel to a clinician rather than one flagged value.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would drop the "get everything" instinct further than this thread does. Every extra test is another chance at a false positive, and incidental findings have their own cost in scans, biopsies and worry.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Short answer first, then the reasoning. A defensible baseline is short: HbA1c and fasting glucose, a lipid panel with ApoB if you can get it, ALT and AST, creatinine with eGFR, TSH, ferritin and B12, and a full blood count. That set catches the things that change, the things that explain symptoms, and the things that alter the prescribing decision. Almost everything else on the long circulating lists is either invariant, uninterpretable without a specific question, or an incidental finding waiting to cause an unnecessary workup.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

labquiet_amy said:

Quarterly for the first year is convention rather than evidence, and it is defensible for a simple reason: it is roughly the interval over which HbA1c…

Second this. Nothing to add that would improve it.