Re: Personal Care Approach moves T2s from Horrible control to Lousy control


[D]on't tweak the last tenth of a percent in those already under good
control, you go after those who are sky-high and truly out of
control.

OK, so both Tim and Charley Coughran point out that other, established
approaches can cut a full 2% off of an out of control A1c.

I don't expect researchers to try and reach the 5% club the way
posters on a.s.d. and s.m.d do. I just expect them to use a protocol
that -in the placebo or non-intervention arm - does as well as
established protocols do. That is, the control group from this
current study should have been doing at least as well as the
intervention group did in the UKPDS or the DCCT trials did. In fact,
the intervention arm in this group only got about 1/3 as much
improvement as DCCT or UKPDS.

That's lousy control, by my book. There might be some rationale for
it, if the study population were more recalcitrant or difficult to
treat than those earlier studies. But that's not what the abstract
seems to be saying.

Really, how can a human subjects board pass on a protocol that, even
when it 'succeeds', is this much worse than interventions that are
already a decade old?

Or am I missing something?

DRT


.

Relevant Pages