Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Wed, Jun-25-08, 20:43
LC FP LC FP is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,151
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/195/188 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: Erie PA
Default

Not being a lawyer, I guess I don't really understand the argument, but I can say that most doctors would interpret intensive to mean-- using whatever means necessary to achieve a tougher target. Not necessarily getting there faster, as the standard therepy group wasn't ever expected to get "there". I know they used time to target as an excuse to explain the higher mortality, and to distinguish ACCORD from the other more favorable study.

These studies are marketing studies targeting prescribing doctors. They're not expected to have no flaws. No clinical study is flawless.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Wed, Jun-25-08, 20:58
lowcarbUgh's Avatar
lowcarbUgh lowcarbUgh is offline
Dazed and Confused
Posts: 2,927
 
Plan: South Beach
Stats: 170/132/135 Female 5'10
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Flip-flop, FL
Default

What do you mean by marketing studies? You realize, of course, that many diabetics would look on this study as containing the truth on how they are supposed to control their diabetes, that looser control is better control.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Wed, Jun-25-08, 21:04
Gypsybyrd's Avatar
Gypsybyrd Gypsybyrd is offline
Posts: 6,127
 
Plan: Atkins '72 It works best!
Stats: 281/261/180 Female 5'3"
BF:mini goal 250
Progress: 20%
Location: St. Pete, Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LC FP
... I know they used time to target as an excuse to explain the higher mortality, and to distinguish ACCORD from the other more favorable study.
...


I don't believe the authors used time to target as an excuse to explain the higher mortality. The way the article reads, the authors used the target itself as the primary explanation for the higher mortality. That's why people are upset/frustrated over this study article and NIH's position on it.

And it's not a lawyer thing ...
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Wed, Jun-25-08, 22:28
LC FP LC FP is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,151
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/195/188 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: Erie PA
Default

Quote:
lowcarbUgh posted:
What do you mean by marketing studies? You realize, of course, that many diabetics would look on this study as containing the truth on how they are supposed to control their diabetes, that looser control is better control

Yeah I know diabetics reading this might think it was important. But how many diabetics read this? They may have heard some news report about it. If they did they'd probably ask their doctors what they thought of it. I forgot this was a NHLBI study, which means I think it is only in a small way a study meant to actually answer a question and not just help market a drug, like most studies are. But look at the disclosures of the authors at the very end of the quote. These guys may be members of the NHLBI but I'd bet their vacation homes have been paid for by their "other" jobs as spokesmen for the multitudes of drug companies they represent.

Quote:
GypsyByrd posted:
I don't believe the authors used time to target as an excuse to explain the higher mortality

Actually I think they used it quite a bit--

Quote:
However, as compared with the standard-therapy group, the intensive-therapy group had a relative increase in mortality of 22% and an absolute increase of 1.0% during this follow-up period, with similar differences in death from cardiovascular causes. This increase in mortality is equivalent to one extra death for every 95 patients who were treated for 3.5 years.


This study was not designed to test the components of the intervention strategy. Analyses that we have performed to date have not identified any clear explanation for this higher mortality. In the intensive-therapy group, a median glycated hemoglobin level of 6.4% was rapidly achieved and maintained by a combination of behavioral and pharmacologic approaches. The standard-therapy group had fewer study visits and used fewer drugs and drug combinations. Thus, the higher rate of death in the intensive-therapy group may be related to factors associated with the various strategies. These factors include but are not limited to differences in the achieved glycated hemoglobin level of 6.4% in the intensive-therapy group, as compared with 7.5% in the standard-therapy group; in the magnitude of the reduction in glycated hemoglobin levels in the two study groups; in the speed of the reduction in glycated hemoglobin levels, with reductions of approximately 1.4% in the intensive-therapy group and 0.6% in the standard-therapy group within the first 4 months after randomization; in changes in drug regimens and in the rate of hypoglycemia; in adverse effects due to an undetected interaction of the various drug classes used at high doses; or in some combination of these or many other possibilities, perhaps in combination with the clinical characteristics of the patients in the study.

Differences in mortality emerged 1 year to 2 years after randomization. It is notable that after about 3 years, a nonsignificant decrease in the rate of the primary outcome emerged in the intensive-therapy group (Figure 2A), due to significantly fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions, despite more deaths from cardiovascular causes and a similar number of strokes (Table 4). These patterns with respect to mortality and the primary outcome suggest that if there is any benefit associated with intensive glucose lowering, it may take several years to emerge, during which time there is an increased risk of death. This intriguing possibility can be answered only by further research.

The strengths of our study include the random assignment of patients to study groups and follow-up of a large number of high-risk patients according to a common protocol, a high rate of follow-up, achievement and maintenance of an absolute difference in glycated hemoglobin levels of 1.1% for 3.5 years, implementation within clinics that routinely treat patients in the community, adjudication of outcomes by a committee unaware of study-group assignment, a factorial design in which blood-pressure and lipid interventions continue to be tested, and safety auditing by an independent committee. However, our study did not address the risks and benefits of various approaches to lowering glycated hemoglobin levels (including what rate of glucose lowering is optimal), the prevention of increased glycated hemoglobin levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have glycated hemoglobin levels below 7.5%, the prevention of diabetes altogether, and the lowering of glycated hemoglobin levels in people who do not have cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors. Indeed, the suggestion of a greater benefit in the primary outcome for patients with a lower glycated hemoglobin level or those without cardiovascular disease raises the possibility that certain subgroups of patients may benefit from intensive glucose lowering. However, our study was not designed to test these possibilities. Finally, glucose-lowering strategies were adjusted for each patient in an open fashion on the basis of their study-group assignment, their subsequent glycemic response to a drug or drug combination, and the development of clinical symptoms, such as hypoglycemia. This linkage of the study-group assignment to post-randomization exposures means that analyses to discern which aspects of the therapeutic strategy contributed to the observed outcomes were unlikely to clearly identify or exclude a cause. Thus, nonprespecified analyses of possible causes of the higher mortality in the intensive-therapy group can be only exploratory and require prospective testing.

Follow-up of the patients after they were switched from intensive therapy to standard therapy may provide crucial information regarding the long-term rates of death and cardiovascular events after a 3.5-year period of intensive therapy. Other trials investigating the long-term outcome of intensive glucose lowering21,22,23,24,25 will report the effect of a variety of therapeutic approaches on mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a range of clinical characteristics. Regardless of the results of these other trials, our study has identified a previously unrecognized harm of intensive glucose lowering in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high glycated hemoglobin levels. This harm may be due either to the approach used for rapidly lowering glycated hemoglobin levels or to the levels that were achieved. Our findings highlight the importance of conducting trials with sufficient statistical power to assess commonly used approaches on clinically relevant outcomes.




Supported by grants (N01-HC-95178, N01-HC-95179, N01-HC-95180, N01-HC-95181, N01-HC-95182, N01-HC-95183, N01-HC-95184, IAA-Y1-HC-9035, and IAA-Y1-HC-1010) from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; by other components of the National Institutes of Health, including the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Eye Institute; by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and by General Clinical Research Centers. The following companies provided study medications, equipment, or supplies: Abbott Laboratories, Amylin Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Closer Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, King Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Omron Healthcare, Sanofi-Aventis, and Schering-Plough.

Dr. Gerstein reports receiving consulting fees from Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Abbott, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Lilly, lecture fees from Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Lilly, and grant support from Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, King, and Merck and holding a patent that is completely assigned to Sanofi-Aventis, for which he receives no royalties or benefit; Dr. Goff, receiving grant support from Merck; Dr. Bigger, receiving grant support from McMaster University; Dr. Buse, having an equity interest in Insulet, MicroIslet, and dLife and receiving grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Amylin, Eli Lilly, and Medtronic; Dr. Cushman, receiving consulting fees from Novartis, King, Takeda, and Sanofi-Aventis, lecture fees from Novartis, and grant support from Novartis, Hamilton Health, and Abbott; Dr. Genuth, receiving consulting fees from Merck, Mannkind, Sanofi-Aventis, and Novartis and lecture fees from Lilly and having an equity interest in Bristol-Myers Squibb; Dr. Grimm, receiving lecture fees from Merck, Pfizer, and Novartis; and Dr. Probstfield, receiving consulting fees from King and grant support from King and Sanofi-Aventis. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Thu, Jun-26-08, 10:13
lowcarbUgh's Avatar
lowcarbUgh lowcarbUgh is offline
Dazed and Confused
Posts: 2,927
 
Plan: South Beach
Stats: 170/132/135 Female 5'10
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Flip-flop, FL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LC FP
Yeah I know diabetics reading this might think it was important. But how many diabetics read this? They may have heard some news report about it. If they did they'd probably ask their doctors what they thought of it.


They are hearing about it from their doctors and that's the frightening thing about it. One diabetic reported that his doctor told him he didn't want his A1c below 6.
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Thu, Jun-26-08, 11:01
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

A study attempting to help people find more effective means to stop smoking was conducted. One group used 3 different kind of patches simultaneously. The control group used just one patch. When it was found that more people in the intensive therapy group suffered adverse effects, it was concluded that stopping smoking is actually bad for your health.

Once this story was released by the media, doctors started advising their patients to continue smoking, as lowering nicotine could lead to problems and even death.

Last edited by Angeline : Thu, Jun-26-08 at 13:14.
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Thu, Jun-26-08, 11:21
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 20,484
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/359/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 67%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

That's a great analogy. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Thu, Jun-26-08, 12:27
Gypsybyrd's Avatar
Gypsybyrd Gypsybyrd is offline
Posts: 6,127
 
Plan: Atkins '72 It works best!
Stats: 281/261/180 Female 5'3"
BF:mini goal 250
Progress: 20%
Location: St. Pete, Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LC FP
...


Actually I think they used it quite a bit--


But the conclusion drawn - the only part most people would see - doesn't refer to time to target. *shrugs* my read of it.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Thu, Jun-26-08, 13:08
Luka's Avatar
Luka Luka is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 22
 
Plan: None
Stats: 150/150/150 Male 174 cm
BF:
Progress:
Location: London, UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angeline
A study attempting to help stop people from smoking was conducted. One group used 3 different kind of patches simultaneously. The control group used just one patch. When it was found that more people in the intensive therapy group suffered adverse effects, it was concluded that stopping smoking is actually bad for your health.

Once this story was released by the media, doctors started advising their patients to continuing smoking, as lowering nicotine could lead to problems and even death.

It will be nice if all doctors do so. But majority is afraid not to lose job and because of that, majority of doctors, not only donít advise people to continuing to smoke. But they still advising patient to stop smoking despite the fact that giving up smoking, lead to premature death and in some country, for every single person that that is refered to antismoking session doctors are financially reworded.

It is an example how an established medical dogma is far more important then peoples health and life.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Thu, Jun-26-08, 13:08
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rightnow
That's a great analogy. :-)


Thanks Rightnow, i was trying to come up with an analogy that showed the absurdity of the conclusion they derived from this so called experiment.
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Thu, Jun-26-08, 16:53
LC FP LC FP is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,151
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/195/188 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: Erie PA
Default

Quote:
Once this story was released by the media, doctors started advising their patients to continue smoking

Well, I guess only time will tell if this study will convince doctors to lower their expectations when treating diabetics. Since it goes against the "prevailing wisdom", it will probably be ignored.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Thu, Jun-26-08, 17:12
LC FP LC FP is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,151
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/195/188 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: Erie PA
Default

"But the conclusion drawn..."

"the conclusion they derived..."

There is no conclusion section in this study. Only a discussion, in which they present their findings. You're left to draw your own conclusions. The media is quick to draw conclusions, and those who have an ax to grind. They refer to previous studies, both positive and negative, as a reason to do another (this) study.


Quote:
Discussion

We conducted this study because previous clinical trials had not established the effects of intensive glucose lowering on cardiovascular events or mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. For example, in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study,15 an intensive glucose-lowering regimen significantly reduced a composite outcome of seven diabetes-related events, as compared with conventional therapy. However, the effects on cardiovascular events and mortality were not significant. Conversely, in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Feasibility Trial,16 intensive glucose lowering was associated with a nonsignificant increase in cardiovascular events and no difference in mortality, and in the University Group Diabetes Program,17,18 the group that received a sulfonylurea (tolbutamide) had higher mortality.

Our findings indicate that a comprehensive, customized, therapeutic strategy targeting glycated hemoglobin levels below 6.0% increased the rate of death from any cause after a mean of 3.5 years, as compared with a strategy targeting levels of 7.0 to 7.9% in patients with a median glycated hemoglobin level of 8.1% and either previous cardiovascular events or multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Patients in both groups had lower mortality than reported in epidemiologic studies of similar patients.19,20 However, as compared with the standard-therapy group, the intensive-therapy group had a relative increase in mortality of 22% and an absolute increase of 1.0% during this follow-up period, with similar differences in death from cardiovascular causes. This increase in mortality is equivalent to one extra death for every 95 patients who were treated for 3.5 years.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Thu, Jun-26-08, 17:48
Daryl's Avatar
Daryl Daryl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,427
 
Plan: ZC
Stats: 260/222/170 Male 5-10
BF:Huh?
Progress: 42%
Location: Texas
Default

Just signed it here. Added:

Quote:
As a Type 2 diabetic, I'm dismayed at the dismissal of normalized blood sugars as a goal for improved health. Through the use of a very low carb diet and a modicum of exercise, I've went from 260 pounds & a FBS of 339, to 155 pounds, and a FBS routinely in the 80s. I've also normalized my liver function, and my blood pressure.


... to the comments.
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Thu, Jun-26-08, 18:07
Gypsybyrd's Avatar
Gypsybyrd Gypsybyrd is offline
Posts: 6,127
 
Plan: Atkins '72 It works best!
Stats: 281/261/180 Female 5'3"
BF:mini goal 250
Progress: 20%
Location: St. Pete, Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LC FP
"But the conclusion drawn..."

"the conclusion they derived..."

There is no conclusion section in this study. Only a discussion, in which they present their findings. You're left to draw your own conclusions. The media is quick to draw conclusions, and those who have an ax to grind. They refer to previous studies, both positive and negative, as a reason to do another (this) study.


There is a Conclusion disguised as 'Discussion':

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd paragraph of Discussion section of the article
Our findings indicate that a comprehensive, customized, therapeutic strategy targeting glycated hemoglobin levels below 6.0% increased the rate of death from any cause after a mean of 3.5 years, as compared with a strategy targeting levels of 7.0 to 7.9% in patients with a median glycated hemoglobin level of 8.1% and either previous cardiovascular events or multiple cardiovascular risk factors.


There is a Conclusion - flat-out called 'Conclusions' in the Abstract - the Abstract being what most people see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Conclusion' section of the abstract - printed with the article
Conclusions[:] As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. These findings identify a previously unrecognized harm of intensive glucose lowering in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Thu, Jun-26-08, 20:54
MizKitty's Avatar
MizKitty MizKitty is offline
95% Sugar Free!
Posts: 7,010
 
Plan: Very high fat LC/HCG
Stats: 310/155.4/159 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 102%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Well, I guess only time will tell if this study will convince doctors to lower their expectations when treating diabetics. Since it goes against the "prevailing wisdom", it will probably be ignored.


One member here has already had his doctor tell him he wants him to get his A1c above 6.0, after reading ACCORD.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:17.


Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.