|
Post by hellodolly on May 20, 2019 14:23:53 GMT -5
I go to a shooting range at night with gun A and a flashlight. I do a great job hitting the target. I can rightly claim that gun A is a good gun. I go back to the shooting range at night with gun B but don't bring the flashlight. I do a bad job hitting the target. I cannot say that gun A is better than gun B. In order to compare gun A to gun B I need to control all of the other factors such as lighting. I get your analogy, but IMO it fails because in the shooting range example, the flashlight is integral to obtaining the good result. With Afrezza, the CGM doesn't "obtain" the result, rather it simply measures and displays it. (I'm not a CGM user so i might be offbase, just going from my understanding of what it does.) Nor is it integral towards obtaining a good result, thus insurance will continue to blow some smoke up patients arse...until otherwise both are shown to be equally valuable, but separate.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on May 20, 2019 17:36:17 GMT -5
None of this really matters. The India trial will not use CGMs because they are not necessary to get approval which is the aim of the trial. This is particularly true since they are targeting Type 2 diabetics and not Type 1 (which does seem odd).
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on May 20, 2019 18:46:53 GMT -5
None of this really matters. The India trial will not use CGMs because they are not necessary to get approval which is the aim of the trial. This is particularly true since they are targeting Type 2 diabetics and not Type 1 (which does seem odd). Aged - the real value of CGMs and afrezza is with the T2s. The trial is straight forward - group 1 has CGMs and metformin, group 2 has CGMs and afrezza. I wonder who will win? I wonder which group will look really bad? What is necessary in this trial is to see the real numbers. There is no more hiding and no more pretending. CGMs are only not necessary if you don't want to expose current T2 treatments for what they are. Additionally, the reporting is so much easier with CGMs with the 24/7 connected care for trial reporting. Its all automated. No more need for point in time A1c testing.
|
|
|
Post by mike0475 on May 20, 2019 19:35:06 GMT -5
How many time we will rehash this therapy? This thread name shows we have nothing to talk about.
More and more were seeing different from what was said
India Brazil Canada and now Australia by mnkd versus Partner
Commercials and script uptake
Need some serious persistence to see this through or bet again
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on May 20, 2019 21:47:20 GMT -5
None of this really matters. The India trial will not use CGMs because they are not necessary to get approval which is the aim of the trial. This is particularly true since they are targeting Type 2 diabetics and not Type 1 (which does seem odd). Aged - the real value of CGMs and afrezza is with the T2s. The trial is straight forward - group 1 has CGMs and metformin, group 2 has CGMs and afrezza. I wonder who will win? I wonder which group will look really bad? What is necessary in this trial is to see the real numbers. There is no more hiding and no more pretending. CGMs are only not necessary if you don't want to expose current T2 treatments for what they are. Additionally, the reporting is so much easier with CGMs with the 24/7 connected care for trial reporting. Its all automated. No more need for point in time A1c testing. Lets wait and see. This trial is about getting approval for Afrezza in India, and not about exposing current T2 treatment, so my money is on this trial being a straight up rerun of Affinity-2 with an improved dosing protocol and no CGMs.
|
|