|
Post by peppy on Jun 3, 2016 17:30:10 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 17:33:58 GMT -5
This is a bit encouraging.. How many patients does your endo friend have who are on Afrezza? If few, will this make a difference beyond do called anecdotal Twitter/ blog evidence? He has about 10-15 pt on afrezza my guess. Yes, scientific evidence was needed and this helps! That's about .5% of total patients on Afrezza.he must've been on Mike list of high prescribers? Is he listed on Sam's list?
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jun 3, 2016 17:42:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Jun 3, 2016 17:42:54 GMT -5
Could someone smarter than me summarize. I am reading what Peppy is posting and it sorta makes sense. Lots of scientific jargon, but that's what it is supposed to be. But now my head hurts. It looks good. But what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Jun 3, 2016 17:48:41 GMT -5
There are links posted on stocktwits. From my read, they essentially that Afrezza is more rapid acting than subcutaneous insulin and that lung function is not adversely impacted by inhaling Afrezza. I think that these studies give a scientific backing for what the small community of Afrezza users have been telling us Can these studies be used for label changes with FDA?
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jun 3, 2016 17:59:28 GMT -5
5 screencast.com/t/Wmcf7rDc3
HUMALOG (Lispro) is a rapid acting human insulin analog indicated to improve glycemic control in adults and children with diabetes mellitus. Afrezza is much more rapid.
|
|
|
Post by cm5 on Jun 3, 2016 18:28:05 GMT -5
Session LB-01 - Late Breaking Poster Session 100-LB / 100 - Technosphere Insulin Inhalation Powder (TI) Displays Earlier Onset and Shorter Duration than Insulin Lispro (Lispro)
And, Again---
Cancer and Inhaled Insulin---Insulin is not a carcinogen---rather, prolonged presence of insulin reduces liver production of IGF binding proteins---
Diabetes as a Risk Factor of Pancreatic Cancer Li, Donghui. Mao, Yixiang. (2015). Diabetes as a Risk Factor of Pancreatic Cancer. Pancreapedia: Exocrine Pancreas Knowledge Base, DOI: 10.3998/panc.2015.2
|
|
|
Post by therealisaching on Jun 3, 2016 18:36:17 GMT -5
There are links posted on stocktwits. From my read, they essentially that Afrezza is more rapid acting than subcutaneous insulin and that lung function is not adversely impacted by inhaling Afrezza. I think that these studies give a scientific backing for what the small community of Afrezza users have been telling us Can these studies be used for label changes with FDA? Ray Urbanski or Mike C said yes at the asm
|
|
|
Post by saxcmann on Jun 3, 2016 18:48:48 GMT -5
He has about 10-15 pt on afrezza my guess. Yes, scientific evidence was needed and this helps! That's about .5% of total patients on Afrezza.he must've been on Mike list of high prescribers? Is he listed on Sam's list? Yes to both i think.
|
|
|
Post by capnbob on Jun 3, 2016 19:38:41 GMT -5
While I may be mistaken, I was under the impression the abstracts were embargoed until the 11th for everyone except authors unless an exception was applied for by the company: professional.diabetes.org/content/embargo-policyHas the company done that? If not, then publication here might be considered a violation of the embargo.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jun 3, 2016 19:49:36 GMT -5
As a moderator, I was concerned about posting the abstracts here until I noticed the "Share Page" feature on each abstract. Since the ADA permits the abstracts to be shared, I think we're okay.
|
|
|
Post by capnbob on Jun 3, 2016 20:08:39 GMT -5
As a moderator, I was concerned about posting the abstracts here until I noticed the "Share Page" feature on each abstract. Since the ADA permits the abstracts to be shared, I think we're okay. Could be, but the way I read it was that data was allowed to be reviewed only by authors until the 11th unless the company had requested an exception. An author "sharing" might qualify as a violation anyway. I noticed that when I tried to go here: www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#...it says "PLEASE ENTER YOUR MEETING ID." I might be worthwhile asking MNKD.
|
|
|
Post by factspls88 on Jun 3, 2016 20:26:16 GMT -5
Could someone smarter than me summarize. I am reading what Peppy is posting and it sorta makes sense. Lots of scientific jargon, but that's what it is supposed to be. But now my head hurts. It looks good. But what do I know. The key conclusion is at the end: The onset of activity for T1 (Afrezza) occurred circa (approximately) 25-35 minutes earlier than for Lispro. T1 (Afrezza) duration of action is about 2 hours shorter than an equivalent dose of Lispro. Dose-response was almost linear up to 48UT1 and 30 U Lispro (This last sentence I interpret as meaning that the relationship of action for Afrezza vs. Lispro didn't change as the doses increased). Someone else correct me if I'm wrong...
|
|
|
Post by capnbob on Jun 3, 2016 21:06:10 GMT -5
5 screencast.com/t/Wmcf7rDc3
HUMALOG (Lispro) is a rapid acting human insulin analog indicated to improve glycemic control in adults and children with diabetes mellitus. Afrezza is much more rapid.
Three problems I see. The most obvious is lack of statistical analysis. Viewers tend to go straight to the "p-value" and if they don't see it, then they move on. Second, while they claim an earlier onset of action of by 25-35 minutes for afrezza versus lispro, they don't appear to actually document those times. The problem here is that the claim contradicts pretty much every other study ever done with lispro, all of which indicate that lispro starts to take effect within 15-20 minutes. They fail to mention how the lispro was administered, so there's no explaining for this oddity. Third, they report time to peak effect. Well, we already know that afrezza peaks at one hour and lispro peaks at two hours, so it should be obvious that it will take afrezza less time to reach one half its peak effect as well less time to reach its actual peak effect. So have they really told us anything that we didn't already know in that respect? What would be most helpful would be to have graphs of the data.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jun 3, 2016 21:35:18 GMT -5
Could someone smarter than me summarize. I am reading what Peppy is posting and it sorta makes sense. Lots of scientific jargon, but that's what it is supposed to be. But now my head hurts. It looks good. But what do I know. The key conclusion is at the end: The onset of activity for T1 (Afrezza) occurred circa (approximately) 25-35 minutes earlier than for Lispro. T1 (Afrezza) duration of action is about 2 hours shorter than an equivalent dose of Lispro. Dose-response was almost linear up to 48UT1 and 30 U Lispro (This last sentence I interpret as meaning that the relationship of action for Afrezza vs. Lispro didn't change as the doses increased). Someone else correct me if I'm wrong... That poster is based on three trials, two of them before ADCOM! I don't think it can be used to change the label because two of the trials predate the label but it's worth a try. The third might as well but the trial number is a typo so I cannot find it. A more interesting question is why, given how long this data has been out there, has it not been presented at the ADA before.
|
|