For those of you who are interested, here is a link to the slides (PDF format) presented in today's webcast.
No problem, You're right 4-6% is the normal range for non-diabetics. A 5% for this trial would have concerned me because of the relatively short length of the trial. 5% is a great number, but I would want to see a gradual reduction to that level over the course of 9-12 months to ensure that a patient is avoiding going to low on his glucose. Because A1C is a measure of average glucose a 5% number would have meant that the higher sugars patients exhibited early in the trial (due to the fact they were only beginning diet, excercise, and drug) would have been "canceled out" by having too low glucose later in the trial in order to reach a 5% number by the end of the trial. In a 12 month trial a 5% would be great. In worse diabetics there is enough of a differential between them and normal to show a large drop in A1C in a 3 month trial and not be concerned about going too low, but once again 5% would be too low for them as well in 3 months.
Specifically why was there not a greater reduction in A1c levels?
-Much lower A1C would suggest that blood sugar was getting to low. Low blood sugar has the potential to kill a patient quickly and this can be a complication of several other drugs. So a number of 5% is much WORSE than 7%.
-Also A1C is a long-term measure. You need steady state to really evaluate, especially with antisense with their long half lives.
-Patients in the trial were newly diagnosed and if you look at average A1C before the trial started you can see that the treatment group had a higher level to begin with. One could make the argument that the drug had no effect on A1C in this head to head trial because all of the patients were newly diagnosed and most can temporarily "cure" their diabetes with diet and excercise if motivated.
-The real effects of this drug will not appear in a trial like this. You need longer-term diabetics with more out of control A1C. IE a 10%'er getting down to 7% looks much better than was possible for this trial given the degree of disease in these patients.
-I'm not sure where they got the average blood glucose comment from. But A1C is a measure of average blood glucose so this might have been reiterating the same point. I don't think the AP article was very good and looks like it was hastily written by a layperson. Stick to the PR and webcast data.
Boy, you and yourself are wearing boots into the Isis manure pile in the last 24 hours. It's strange that you have not added one bit of worth while information in the total. Actually, not so strange. :>(