|
|
Post by uvula on Jun 24, 2018 8:05:12 GMT -5
A 1% reduction in something doesn't sound that important.
Since a1c is a percentage, going from 8 to 7 is presented as a 1% reduction.
Couldn't it somehow be called a 12% reduction because 8x.88=7.
If you then consider that an a1c of 5 is perfect, going from 3 points above perfect to 2 points above perfect is a 33% reduction.
Obviously endos and t1ds know what a1c means, but most financial analysts and investors dont. Would it help to present the results differently? Or is this the dummest thing I ever posted here?
|
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Jun 24, 2018 10:32:26 GMT -5
A 1% reduction in something doesn't sound that important. Since a1c is a percentage, going from 8 to 7 is presented as a 1% reduction. Couldn't it somehow be called a 12% reduction because 8x.88=7. If you then consider that an a1c of 5 is perfect, going from 3 points above perfect to 2 points above perfect is a 33% reduction. Obviously endos and t1ds know what a1c means, but most financial analysts and investors dont. Would it help to present the results differently? Or is this the dummest thing I ever posted here? Agreed. Additionally, showing the benefit of a 1% reduction - e.g. For every percentage decrease in Hba1c (e.g. 9 to 8%), there is a 35% reduction in the risk of complications. (The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS)) |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jun 24, 2018 13:57:32 GMT -5
There is a map. Maybe we can use it. Looks like a 1 point hbA1c drop ~ 28 mg/dl. I'd have look it up wasn't the mean hbA1c 7.7 prior at the start of the study?  |
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jun 24, 2018 17:09:44 GMT -5
A 1% reduction in something doesn't sound that important. Since a1c is a percentage, going from 8 to 7 is presented as a 1% reduction. Couldn't it somehow be called a 12% reduction because 8x.88=7. If you then consider that an a1c of 5 is perfect, going from 3 points above perfect to 2 points above perfect is a 33% reduction. Obviously endos and t1ds know what a1c means, but most financial analysts and investors dont. Would it help to present the results differently? Or is this the dummest thing I ever posted here? What financial analysts know is no one has every had a treatment which can reduce A1c from 8 to 7 with no additional hypos and its easier to use.
All these analysts need to know is one phrase concerning afrezza "game changer" - which translates into "buy buy buy".
|
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Jun 24, 2018 17:28:23 GMT -5
A 1% reduction in something doesn't sound that important. Since a1c is a percentage, going from 8 to 7 is presented as a 1% reduction. Couldn't it somehow be called a 12% reduction because 8x.88=7. If you then consider that an a1c of 5 is perfect, going from 3 points above perfect to 2 points above perfect is a 33% reduction. Obviously endos and t1ds know what a1c means, but most financial analysts and investors dont. Would it help to present the results differently? Or is this the dummest thing I ever posted here? What financial analysts know is no one has every had a treatment which can reduce A1c from 8 to 7 with no additional hypos and its easier to use.
All these analysts need to know is one phrase concerning afrezza "game changer" - which translates into "buy buy buy".
SayHey could not agree with you more. Especially as it is my undestanding the ADA just raised the acceptable number for Hba1c to 8 as it was too hard to get most diabetics to 7, if I understand this correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jun 24, 2018 17:37:17 GMT -5
What financial analysts know is no one has every had a treatment which can reduce A1c from 8 to 7 with no additional hypos and its easier to use.
All these analysts need to know is one phrase concerning afrezza "game changer" - which translates into "buy buy buy".
SayHey could not agree with you more. Especially as it is my undestanding the ADA just raised the acceptable number for Hba1c to 8 as it was too hard to get most diabetics to 7, if I understand this correctly. Yes, to reduce hypoglycemia.  |
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Jun 24, 2018 17:39:44 GMT -5
What financial analysts know is no one has every had a treatment which can reduce A1c from 8 to 7 with no additional hypos and its easier to use.
All these analysts need to know is one phrase concerning afrezza "game changer" - which translates into "buy buy buy".
SayHey could not agree with you more. Especially as it is my undestanding the ADA just raised the acceptable number for Hba1c to 8 as it was too hard to get most diabetics to 7, if I understand this correctly. That’s nearly 185mg/dl as a target !! Wow, I would be really disappointed if my Dr told me this was as good as you need to be. PWD using Afrezza rarely get that high,,,, ever ! and this is the new goal ?? Wow |
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Jun 24, 2018 17:40:56 GMT -5
SayHey could not agree with you more. Especially as it is my undestanding the ADA just raised the acceptable number for Hba1c to 8 as it was too hard to get most diabetics to 7, if I understand this correctly. Yes, to reduce hypoglycemia. According to this calculator, it’s over 180,, www.hb1ac.com✌🏻😎 |
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Jun 24, 2018 17:42:23 GMT -5
Yes, to reduce hypoglycemia. According to this calculator, it’s over 180,, www.hb1ac.com✌🏻😎 The calculator on the right @ the link |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Jun 24, 2018 18:28:18 GMT -5
The calculator on the right @ the link Peppy help me out here... Thought I recalled seeing this published a month or two ago... Perhaps I misunderstood? |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jun 24, 2018 18:31:00 GMT -5
The calculator on the right @ the link Peppy help me out here... Thought I recalled seeing this published a month or two ago... Perhaps I misunderstood? published in the 2018 Standards of care. it may be the supplemental. I may be able to dig it up easily. Recommendations - A reasonable A1C goal for many nonpregnant adults is ,7% (53 mmol/mol). A - Providers might reasonably suggest more stringent A1C goals (such as ,6.5% [48 mmol/mol]) for se- lected individual patients if this can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse ef- fects of treatment (i.e., polyphar- macy). Appropriate patients might include those with short duration of diabetes, type 2 diabetes treated with lifestyle or metformin only, long life expectancy, or no signifi- cant cardiovascular disease. C - Less stringent A1C goals (such as ,8% [64 mmol/mol]) may be ap- propriate for patients with a history of severe hypoglycemia, limited life expectancy, advanced microvascu- lar or macrovascular complications, extensive comorbid conditions, or long-standing diabetes in whom the goal is difficult to achieve de- spite diabetes self-management education, appropriate glucose monitoring, and effective doses of multiple glucose-lowering agents including insulin. B Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/10068/ada-2018-standards-care#ixzz5JOA8OzbO |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Jun 24, 2018 18:35:05 GMT -5
Peppy help me out here... Thought I recalled seeing this published a month or two ago... Perhaps I misunderstood? published in the 2018 Standards of care. it may be the supplemental. I may be able to dig it up easily. Recommendations - A reasonable A1C goal for many nonpregnant adults is ,7% (53 mmol/mol). A - Providers might reasonably suggest more stringent A1C goals (such as ,6.5% [48 mmol/mol]) for se- lected individual patients if this can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse ef- fects of treatment (i.e., polyphar- macy). Appropriate patients might include those with short duration of diabetes, type 2 diabetes treated with lifestyle or metformin only, long life expectancy, or no signifi- cant cardiovascular disease. C - Less stringent A1C goals (such as ,8% [64 mmol/mol]) may be ap- propriate for patients with a history of severe hypoglycemia, limited life expectancy, advanced microvascu- lar or macrovascular complications, extensive comorbid conditions, or long-standing diabetes in whom the goal is difficult to achieve de- spite diabetes self-management education, appropriate glucose monitoring, and effective doses of multiple glucose-lowering agents including insulin. B Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/10068/ada-2018-standards-care#ixzz5JOA8OzbOThank you for coming to my rescue Peppy!  You are the best... And this makes the whole stat study more relevant than ever for the ADA and PWD... Taking the officlal hba1c recommended measure from 8.0 to 6.5 would be HUGE imho... And not one other product will be able to do this without severe hypos which is ironically the reason most endos don't think Afrezza can either. |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Jun 24, 2018 18:38:54 GMT -5
As an aside to the post drectly above, I spoke with a UCLA endo several times two years ago to intorduce him to Afrezza and explain to him about how it works to be able to let pwd spend more time in range with lower fasing BG levels and acheive lower Hba1c's some in non-diabetic range. He told me quote: "I don't beleive you and you must be lying to me." Now this was not a personal attack on me he just did not trust what i was saying to him at the time. This is where Dr. K should make a big difference with the stat study in hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Jun 24, 2018 18:41:37 GMT -5
published in the 2018 Standards of care. it may be the supplemental. I may be able to dig it up easily. Recommendations - A reasonable A1C goal for many nonpregnant adults is ,7% (53 mmol/mol). A - Providers might reasonably suggest more stringent A1C goals (such as ,6.5% [48 mmol/mol]) for se- lected individual patients if this can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse ef- fects of treatment (i.e., polyphar- macy). Appropriate patients might include those with short duration of diabetes, type 2 diabetes treated with lifestyle or metformin only, long life expectancy, or no signifi- cant cardiovascular disease. C - Less stringent A1C goals (such as ,8% [64 mmol/mol]) may be ap- propriate for patients with a history of severe hypoglycemia, limited life expectancy, advanced microvascu- lar or macrovascular complications, extensive comorbid conditions, or long-standing diabetes in whom the goal is difficult to achieve de- spite diabetes self-management education, appropriate glucose monitoring, and effective doses of multiple glucose-lowering agents including insulin. B Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/10068/ada-2018-standards-care#ixzz5JOA8OzbOThank you for coming to my rescue Peppy! You are the best... And this makes the whole stat study more relevant than ever for the ADA and PWD... Taking the officlal hba1c recommended measure from 8.0 to 6.5 would be HUGE imho... And not one other product will be able to do this without severe hypos which is ironically the reason most endos don't think Afrezza can either. For the first time this weekend, I just got a chill down my spine and it’s 80 deg f outside. The way you phrased this brought it all into focus for me. 🤓 Now I’m trying to figure out what the market cap of a company with the only insulin drug that can do this is worth, especially considering the technology platform and drugs in the pipeline. |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Jun 24, 2018 18:45:04 GMT -5
Thank you Goyo. Me too, as I have been having a hard time trying to wrap my arms around what I thought was the initial luke warm reaction to the stat study as i posted under the Dr. K effect thread earlier today. It will take time but I genuinely believe mnkd is finally on the right path with the right story and the right story teller.. GLTAL's...
|
|
You are the best... And this makes the whole stat study more relevant than ever for the ADA and PWD... Taking the officlal hba1c recommended measure from 8.0 to 6.5 would be HUGE imho... And not one other product will be able to do this without severe hypos which is ironically the reason most endos don't think Afrezza can either.