|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 20, 2019 21:57:57 GMT -5
Unfortunately I would need two boxes so that's $240 per month, or $720 per quarter. Right now I pay $65 per quarter so that's an extra $2,600 per year - I will pass on that.  I don't believe in my case it would reduce my A1c by a point because my A1c is already well controlled and my TIR is usually over 80% so gains for me would be very marginal. If my numbers were worse then I would be a lot more interested, but $2,600 a year is still a lot. I would think if you contacted MC, and let him know who you were on Proboards, he would provide it for free.  Hmm. That's quite tempting. Or masked men might appear at my door.  |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Feb 20, 2019 22:09:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Feb 20, 2019 22:10:51 GMT -5
Aged - you seem to be working very hard tonight to spin the results. There is no need to spin. Here is what Dr. Kendall said - "glycemic control were significantly improved compared to injected insulin in meal-challenge tests in patients with type 2 diabetes" What is significant 0.5, maybe more, we will find out tomorrow.
Bottom line - switch from RAA to afrezza, get a little coaching and get almost a 1% drop in your A1c.
Or if you are T1 stay on RAA, get a little coaching and get an almost identical result to Afrezza users. The mixed treatment T2 pool got a better than 1% drop with their current treatment and coaching. However I don't think Dr Kendall is talking about the One Drop trial. That looks like the first talk and I am really interested to see more details on that. We know you really don't believe this and that you know better with regard to the long tail and potential for hypos with RAAs, regardless, your posts are still appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Feb 20, 2019 22:16:10 GMT -5
I would think if you contacted MC, and let him know who you were on Proboards, he would provide it for free. Hmm. That's quite tempting. Or masked men might appear at my door. I don't wear a mask.....I..I usually don't wear a mask.....uh oh  |
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Feb 20, 2019 22:21:02 GMT -5
I get the impression that Mannkind hasn’t released the study results on their own for reasons of fully vetting the data. But the .93 reduction in absolute terms suggests to me they know the comparator arm numbers. Otherwise how could they determine the absolute number. From my understanding, another way of phrasing the number is that the Afrezza arm reduced A1C .93 more than the comparator arm, whatever that number is. That, or I’m not grasping the definition of “relative” and “absolute “. I suspect that we are in the same position as with STAT, Mannkind don't own the results so can't control the release. I am certain they know the comparator results becasuse internally they will have seen the read out. I think you will find that the 0.93 reduction is from the average A1c of the Afrezza arm at the start to the A1c of the Afrezza arm at the end of the trial. I am pretty certain it's unrelated to the comparator arm. The absolute reduction just means the A1c was reduced by 0.93. In the earlier trial the absolute reduction of 1.3 meant the A1c of 8.3% dropped to 7.0% (the PR for that trial is here). They are talking about absolute reduction to distinguish between that and a percentage reduction (it was a 15.6% drop). For A1c people tend to want to know the actual (absolute) drop rather than the percentage drop in trials. I respect your position, Aged, but in terms of understanding these results, I’m referencing a definition of absolute and relative that is different than what you are stating. If you refer to the link in my previous posts, both absolute and relative are stated as a percentage, but the absolute measurement is based on the difference between the two different arms of a study whereas the relative measurement is based on the same starting point for both arms. The -.93 differential is the absolute number associated with the greater achievement of lower A1C than the comparator arm (current bolus injectable insulin). I’m either very right or very wrong here. 🙂 |
|
|
|
Post by sellhighdrinklow on Feb 20, 2019 22:47:09 GMT -5
Aged - try this www.insulinsavings.com I hear up in NYC everyone is so rich they didn't want Amamzon there so $120 a month to reduce your A1c by a point seems money well spent. There is a reason other insulin vendors give away free samples, they are not as good as afrezza. Nothing in life is free. Pay now or pay later. Exactly, Aged. You most likely have a refridgerator, (full supply ),full of your injectible short acting. For $15 you could get a supply of 4-units for corrections. It's a no-brainer for making your life simpler and ease into Afrezza. Your 24/7 here makes no sense ...but I've expressed my comments to you several times. And I say it again, if you're really type 1, absolute no- brainer for $15. |
|
|
|
Post by sellhighdrinklow on Feb 20, 2019 22:53:42 GMT -5
Aged - try this www.insulinsavings.com I hear up in NYC everyone is so rich they didn't want Amazon there so $120 a month to reduce your A1c by a point seems money well spent. There is a reason other insulin vendors give away free samples, they are not as good as afrezza. Nothing in life is free. Pay now or pay later.https://onedrop.today/blogs/press-releases/one-drop-reports-glycemic-improvement-among-people-with-type-2-diabetes-using-one-drop-mobile-app Unfortunately I would need two boxes so that's $240 per month, or $720 per quarter. Right now I pay $65 per quarter so that's an extra $2,600 per year - I will pass on that. I don't believe in my case it would reduce my A1c by a point because my A1c is already well controlled and my TIR is usually over 80% so gains for me would be very marginal. If my numbers were worse then I would be a lot more interested, but $2,600 a year is still a lot. My A1C was 6.7 before Afrezza. Now it's 5.3 and I lead a great, almost normal, life w next to no feelings of being hypo. Normal as evidenced by my A1C. What's your A1C, Agedhippie? Maybe $2,600 a year is worth leading a normal life with normal blood sugar levels... |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Feb 21, 2019 6:33:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Feb 21, 2019 6:35:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Feb 21, 2019 6:36:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Feb 21, 2019 6:56:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tw12 on Feb 21, 2019 7:19:09 GMT -5
Sports.....wow. Now 10,006 posts strong!
On behalf of all of us long and loyal holders of MNKD,
thank you for your terrific work
(especially in the face of so much intentional obfuscation)
in promoting clarity and understanding.
Onward!
|
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Feb 21, 2019 7:56:46 GMT -5
The ugly duckling is turning into a swan. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 21, 2019 9:19:42 GMT -5
I respect your position, Aged, but in terms of understanding these results, I’m referencing a definition of absolute and relative that is different than what you are stating. If you refer to the link in my previous posts, both absolute and relative are stated as a percentage, but the absolute measurement is based on the difference between the two different arms of a study whereas the relative measurement is based on the same starting point for both arms. The -.93 differential is the absolute number associated with the greater achievement of lower A1C than the comparator arm (current bolus injectable insulin). I’m either very right or very wrong here. 🙂 You may be right on this. I am basing my thought on One Drop's previous PR where they used the same language claiming an absolute drop. In that case the the reduction for T2 was 1.3, and the reduction for T1 was 0.93, but they say "...demonstrating a 1.1% to 1.3% absolute reduction in A1C..." and 1.1 would be the average and 1.3 was the T2 result (always claim the better result  . The results will tell though and I could be completely wrong (and not for the first time ) |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 21, 2019 9:32:36 GMT -5
Unfortunately I would need two boxes so that's $240 per month, or $720 per quarter. Right now I pay $65 per quarter so that's an extra $2,600 per year - I will pass on that. I don't believe in my case it would reduce my A1c by a point because my A1c is already well controlled and my TIR is usually over 80% so gains for me would be very marginal. If my numbers were worse then I would be a lot more interested, but $2,600 a year is still a lot. My A1C was 6.7 before Afrezza. Now it's 5.3 and I lead a great, almost normal, life w next to no feelings of being hypo. Normal as evidenced by my A1C. What's your A1C, Agedhippie? Maybe $2,600 a year is worth leading a normal life with normal blood sugar levels... That's a great result and you would have to be insane to stop taking Afrezza. My A1c at the last test was 6.3, TIR is 82%, and SD is 27 which is why I am reluctant to change since at this point I see little benefit in improving things much further. If it wasn't working then that would be a different matter. |
|
. The results will tell though and I could be completely wrong (and not for the first time