|
Post by lakon on Jun 23, 2019 3:08:40 GMT -5
So then your expectation should be that the ADA remove all injectable RAA from their SOC since the only real solutions are the ones you noted above. My point is that as long as they are advocating the use of injectable RAA at some point in the progression of the malady, they should at least be doing the same for inhaled insulin. It is, after all, even using the lowest denominator, non-inferior to its competitors. My beef with the ADA is that they will not list inhaled insulin along side injectable RAA as part of the SOC. For an agency with so much clout be in a position to cherry pick solutions based on who contributes the most money just soils their image, to say the least. I just wish that Mannkind would step up and say what it is that's really going on. If the ADA has ruled out ever mentioning inhaled insulin other than an "alternate treatment option", then what does it hurt to bring this fight to the public arena? Yeah. I would not argue with your position there at all. Since non-inferiority has been established they should have it listed alongside RAA. Wow! That almost seems like an endorsement from agedhippie. The ADA and FDA would never be so bold.
|
|
|
Post by hiswelshness on Jun 23, 2019 16:45:37 GMT -5
The ADA are simply the diabetes marketing department of Big Pharma. Period.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jun 23, 2019 17:16:48 GMT -5
The ADA are simply the diabetes marketing department of Big Pharma. Period. More importantly they set the standard that the doctors follow for the treatment of diabetes. You might not like them, but their word matters.
|
|