BRIGHT study

Discussion in 'Sanofi' started by anonymous, Jun 25, 2018 at 6:16 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    So I hear from my doctors that the Sanofi sales force is already running with this, but of course not including the entire study details. How can you guys do this and hang on to any shred of integrity you once had? I would love to hear how your trainers are spinning this. Incredible. You do realize that this is a terrible study that promotes your competitor's product, right?

    #SAD
    #FAKENEWS
     

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Toujeo is a ridiculously stupid drug
    and the Bright study is not even worth mentioning. Also, Tresiba just came out with this data. Much more impressive than ours.

    http://press.novonordisk-us.com/2018-06-23-Tresiba-R-demonstrated-significantly-lower-A1C-and-rates-of-hypoglycaemia-versus-insulin-glargine-U-300-in-real-world-evidence-study
     
  3. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    CONFIRM is absolute garbage. Novo simply set inclusion criteria of metadata to yield favorable results for Tresiba over Toujeo. Funny that someone would question Sanof’s integrity and ignore Novo’s consistent shady behavior. At least BRIGHT is an actual clinical study. Reception was very positive at ADA.
     
  5. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Ok, let's see:

    Same A1C since it was a treat to target study.
    Toujeo required 20% more insulin to get to the same goal as Tresiba
    Overall Hypo was the same
    Hypo during the titration phase was lower w Toujeo because Toujeo was shown to be less potent, and patients' blood glucose was higher. ( If that doesn't sink it, please read that again).
    Morning Fasting BG levels were significantly higher with Toujeo.

    How is that a good study for Toujeo? Sanofi showed that Toujeo requires 20% more insulin to get to the same A1C ( and conveniently left out body weight data, big shocker), resulted in higher BG/A1C during titration, higher morning faster numbers, but lower rates of hypo bc patients BG was higher.

    Slam dunk baby!!!
     
  6. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Is this why we are all of a sudden running Lantus DTC commercials again? what the hell
     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I disagree. 4,000 pts analyzed retrospectively with a net difference of -0.3% A1C and 30% less hypo over a longer period of time was statistically significant for a reason. I think the 37% higher discontinuation rate with Toujeo is misleading though. I bet that's way overblown. Let's face it. Tresiba is better than Toujeo. Now we've got proof. If it takes 20% more insulin to get to the same glycemic goal, we should have added more units to pens to make up the difference. Sanofi went cheap. Let's hope Toujeo max picks things up a bit
     
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    All you have to do is ask your biggest Endos what they actually SEE (as opposed to just believing Novo studies) working better in their patients and they'll tell you Tresiba. Toujeo is an inferior me-too. Come on.... stop putting lip-stick on a pig.
     
  9. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Wow Novo must be worried having to post on Sanofi board.