|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 27, 2024 14:02:24 GMT -5
OK - so why didn't they take the bedtime dose? They agreed to taking the "correction" doses when they signed up and then didn't take them. Why? ... They didn't want to, they didn't feel they needed it, they had other things to do. There are any number of reasons. It's easy to forget that diabetics are people and not automata (endos certainly do from time to time). The trial will publish the results in line with registered study plan so cherry picking the results is not going to work. It's possible to do an analysis of just the compliant patients, STAT-1 did that in one paper, but the medical world is going to be looking at the headline figure as you can see from the ADA panel.
|
|
|
Post by sr71 on Jul 27, 2024 21:24:00 GMT -5
OK - so why didn't they take the bedtime dose? They agreed to taking the "correction" doses when they signed up and then didn't take them. Why? ... They didn't want to, they didn't feel they needed it, they had other things to do. There are any number of reasons. It's easy to forget that diabetics are people and not automata (endos certainly do from time to time). The trial will publish the results in line with registered study plan so cherry picking the results is not going to work. It's possible to do an analysis of just the compliant patients, STAT-1 did that in one paper, but the medical world is going to be looking at the headline figure as you can see from the ADA panel. This discussion suggests to me a new Afrezza marketing slogan:
"For diabetics who are truly serious about controlling A1C."
Of course, the FDA would find multiple reasons to frown on such an enlightened approach.
But hey, maybe VDEX could use it! It's all yours now @sportsrancho
|
|
|
Post by daisyz on Jul 27, 2024 22:34:14 GMT -5
OK - so why didn't they take the bedtime dose? They agreed to taking the "correction" doses when they signed up and then didn't take them. Why? ... They didn't want to, they didn't feel they needed it, they had other things to do. There are any number of reasons. It's easy to forget that diabetics are people and not automata (endos certainly do from time to time). The trial will publish the results in line with registered study plan so cherry picking the results is not going to work. It's possible to do an analysis of just the compliant patients, STAT-1 did that in one paper, but the medical world is going to be looking at the headline figure as you can see from the ADA panel. I do find it curious that you are here pontificating everything as being a diabetic and dealing w blood sugar levels and insulin, and reportedly, are a Type 1. You come across as an intelligent person with Type 1, yet you've never tried Afrezza (?). (Is that accurate or did I miss something?) If you haven't tried Afrezza and you are Type 1 and seemingly on a higher IQ than most as you seem to portray, why wouldn't you try Afrezza based on all the evidence before you? Also, your commentary is "mostly" negative w regard to Afrezza. Also, you state, you are basically, a lazy diabetic, unwilling to try to improve your Time In Range and therefore live a healthier, longer life.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 27, 2024 23:04:23 GMT -5
I do find it curious that you are here pontificating everything as being a diabetic and dealing w blood sugar levels and insulin, and reportedly, are a Type 1. You come across as an intelligent person with Type 1, yet you've never tried Afrezza (?). (Is that accurate or did I miss something?) If you haven't tried Afrezza and you are Type 1 and seemingly on a higher IQ than most as you seem to portray, why wouldn't you try Afrezza based on all the evidence before you? Also, your commentary is "mostly" negative w regard to Afrezza. Also, you state, you are basically, a lazy diabetic, unwilling to try to improve your Time In Range and therefore live a healthier, longer life. I went over this here at some length, but I realize now that it was several years ago! So to recap.... The problem with trying Afrezza is that it is hard to do. If I want to do that I will need to get a prescription. If I do that the insurance is going to cut off my existing RAA prescription (you can only have one meal time prescription at a time has been my experience.) If Afrezza doesn't work for me (and it probably won't for the reason you point out - I want to minimize my interaction with insulin) I will then need to get my RAA prescription re-established which insurers make painful. This is the reason why MNKD not giving samples to endos, like every other insulin company out there does, is amazingly dumb - it lets people try without screwing up their prescriptions. My TIR is fine thanks, and since it looks like Afrezza does no better than RAA without a lot more work I doubt it will lead to a healthier, longer life - but who knows. Oddly it is more viable to use Afrezza with an AID pump since you have a prescription both for the pump insulin, and another for pens in case the pump has issues. In that case you could make the secondary insulin Afrezza rather than pens.
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 28, 2024 7:00:53 GMT -5
I do find it curious that you are here pontificating everything as being a diabetic and dealing w blood sugar levels and insulin, and reportedly, are a Type 1. You come across as an intelligent person with Type 1, yet you've never tried Afrezza (?). (Is that accurate or did I miss something?) If you haven't tried Afrezza and you are Type 1 and seemingly on a higher IQ than most as you seem to portray, why wouldn't you try Afrezza based on all the evidence before you? Also, your commentary is "mostly" negative w regard to Afrezza. Also, you state, you are basically, a lazy diabetic, unwilling to try to improve your Time In Range and therefore live a healthier, longer life. I went over this here at some length, but I realize now that it was several years ago! So to recap.... The problem with trying Afrezza is that it is hard to do. If I want to do that I will need to get a prescription. If I do that the insurance is going to cut off my existing RAA prescription (you can only have one meal time prescription at a time has been my experience.) If Afrezza doesn't work for me (and it probably won't for the reason you point out - I want to minimize my interaction with insulin) I will then need to get my RAA prescription re-established which insurers make painful. This is the reason why MNKD not giving samples to endos, like every other insulin company out there does, is amazingly dumb - it lets people try without screwing up their prescriptions. My TIR is fine thanks, and since it looks like Afrezza does no better than RAA without a lot more work I doubt it will lead to a healthier, longer life - but who knows. Oddly it is more viable to use Afrezza with an AID pump since you have a prescription both for the pump insulin, and another for pens in case the pump has issues. In that case you could make the secondary insulin Afrezza rather than pens. Come on man - just ask VDex for some free samples and some free coaching and agree to post the results right here on Proboards. It could be the "pilot" study for the study VDex said they are doing later this year. IDK but I bet Sports could hook you up. I bet if we took a poll many on this board would like to see this. This one I would like you to prove - "it looks like Afrezza does no better than RAA without a lot more work". How hard is it to take a puff at meals without having to time meals 15 minutes prior? Maybe you need to take another puff 90 minutes later which seems a lot easier than rage bolusing and then take another puff before bed. Thats sounds easier to me but you can prove me wrong. What we do know is in Inhale-3 afrezza kicked butt over the RAA at meals and TIR and A1c when the bed time puff was taken. BTW - you should have signed up for Inhale-3 but this "pilot" study will be better.
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 28, 2024 7:43:37 GMT -5
OK - so why didn't they take the bedtime dose? They agreed to taking the "correction" doses when they signed up and then didn't take them. Why? ... They didn't want to, they didn't feel they needed it, they had other things to do. There are any number of reasons. It's easy to forget that diabetics are people and not automata (endos certainly do from time to time). The trial will publish the results in line with registered study plan so cherry picking the results is not going to work. It's possible to do an analysis of just the compliant patients, STAT-1 did that in one paper, but the medical world is going to be looking at the headline figure as you can see from the ADA panel. How about this for the reason - they intentionally did not follow the instructions they were given knowing it would intentionally increase their A1c? These were not people who "forgot" a few nights. This was a block who intentionally did not follow the direction to take the "correction puff" prior to bed. I see no reason they should not be following Mango's suggestion and not count them in the superiority results. They should be in the category of "intentionally non-compliant" and I don't think that would break the registered study plan. In fact it provides greater visibility into the results. The thing is even with trying the deep six their A1c they did pretty well. Its a good thing you can't try and hide this type of behavior now that we have the CGM reports. Otherwise we would still think afrezza is not superior to the RAA and AID. But now the world knows better.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jul 28, 2024 7:47:59 GMT -5
I’m gonna take some snapshots of these posts and send them to Bill, just to see if he wants to comment…but I can say that Mannkind doesn’t give us free samples anymore. We don’t own our own pharmacy, so it’s a problem.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jul 28, 2024 8:12:01 GMT -5
“There’s some background info on the study that I’m missing but can infer from the discussion. Regarding samples, we used to get plenty and a couple years ago it became much more restricted. The liberal use of samples definitely helped.
As far as not switching from RAA to Afrezza: the results are essentially comparable. Not true at all. Afrezza is vastly superior. I know that hasn’t been shown in FDA studies but certainly has been in the real world.” ~Bill
|
|
|
Post by mayday on Jul 28, 2024 8:26:14 GMT -5
I’m gonna take some snapshots of these posts and send them to Bill, just to see if he wants to comment…but I can say that Mannkind doesn’t give us free samples anymore. We don’t own our own pharmacy, so it’s a problem. I'm sure Thatsmytakeonit would fund the cost of this test for Agedhippie. As he receives monthly checks in the mail, that he says he has no current need for.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 28, 2024 9:16:03 GMT -5
Come on man - just ask VDex for some free samples and some free coaching and agree to post the results right here on Proboards. It could be the "pilot" study for the study VDex said they are doing later this year. IDK but I bet Sports could hook you up. I bet if we took a poll many on this board would like to see this. This one I would like you to prove - "it looks like Afrezza does no better than RAA without a lot more work". How hard is it to take a puff at meals without having to time meals 15 minutes prior? Maybe you need to take another puff 90 minutes later which seems a lot easier than rage bolusing and then take another puff before bed. Thats sounds easier to me but you can prove me wrong. What we do know is in Inhale-3 afrezza kicked butt over the RAA at meals and TIR and A1c when the bed time puff was taken. ... MNKD makes a point of giving out minimal samples because of cost - it hobbles them in competing with the others but it's their call. I am not going to answer the dosing question because I have done so repeatedly and you just ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 28, 2024 9:20:51 GMT -5
UPDATE: I said “Funny” in reaction to a post which has been deleted (hopefully by the author).
Funny.
Mike? Is there a huge hassle for free samples for one of ProBoards most cherished (by me at least) posters? I can imagine accounting and other entanglements (regulatory?), but would love for our generous helpful lazy T1 to have a go with Afrezza.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 28, 2024 9:21:06 GMT -5
How about this for the reason - they intentionally did not follow the instructions they were given knowing it would intentionally increase their A1c? .... At this point I feel contact has been lost with reality. This is well into alternative facts.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 28, 2024 9:29:34 GMT -5
“There’s some background info on the study that I’m missing but can infer from the discussion. Regarding samples, we used to get plenty and a couple years ago it became much more restricted. The liberal use of samples definitely helped. As far as not switching from RAA to Afrezza: the results are essentially comparable. Not true at all. Afrezza is vastly superior. I know that hasn’t been shown in FDA studies but certainly has been in the real world.” ~Bill Samples are key. When I was looking at switching from Toujeo to Tresiba a few years ago my endo gave me a sample pack of Tresiba to try and I switched. So one pen got them years of sales. The risk/reward ratio is insanely good. The problem for Afrezza is that the FDA studies are what most of the medical profession will go with. They are designed to avoid selection bias in the data sets. In the case of Vdex people are motivated to seek out an alternative to their PCP or current endo so they are more inclined to do better.
|
|
|
Post by porkini on Jul 28, 2024 9:48:19 GMT -5
UPDATE: I said “Funny” in reaction to a post which has been deleted (hopefully by the author). Funny. Mike? Is there a huge hassle for free samples for one of ProBoards most cherished (by me at least) posters? I can imagine accounting and other entanglements (regulatory?), but would love for our generous helpful lazy T1 to have a go with Afrezza. The other possibility is that the author substantially edited their original post. Too bad the "quote" function wasn't utilized. I don't believe there's been any recent deleted posts.
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 28, 2024 9:53:57 GMT -5
UPDATE: I said “Funny” in reaction to a post which has been deleted (hopefully by the author). Funny. Mike? Is there a huge hassle for free samples for one of ProBoards most cherished (by me at least) posters? I can imagine accounting and other entanglements (regulatory?), but would love for our generous helpful lazy T1 to have a go with Afrezza. The other possibility is that the author substantially edited their original post. Too bad the "quote" function wasn't utilized. I don't believe there's been any recent deleted posts. Another possibility is I was wrong.
|
|