"In diabetes mellitus, higher amounts of glycosolated hemoglobin (Hb1Ac), indicating poorer control of blood glucose levels, have been associated with cardiovascular disease, nephropathy, and retinopathy. Monitoring the HbA1c in type-1 diabetic patients may improve treatment." - wikipedia

---

Just for reference, 6.5% Hb1Ac or above in the blood is how one diagnoses diabetes. So a .9% point reduction is huge and a marked improvement. It could take a diabetic or borderline dm patient to "normal". Also remember, that patients in both arms of BLOOM_DM (and Qnexa's equivalent) were allowed to take their diabetes medicine, so this further indicated that Lorcaserin + diet helps a lot.

From what I can find Lorcaserin in the Bloom-DM trial showed median reduction in hb1ac of .9%, vs placebo of .4%. Qnexa shows 1.6% reduction vs 1.1% placebo.

Both showed a median net improvement of .5%.

Why are some people saying Lorc was better than Q in reducing Hb1Ac? Are they just incorrect? Or are they implying that since the weight loss median was more modest with Lorc that the .9% is good relatively speaking? Or do they imply that the % difference is better (e.g. Lorc showed over a 100% improvement, Q only a 33% improvement vs placebo).

From all I read, a .9% improvement is awesome, so don't get me wrong. Just curious why people make these comparisons? It seems to me that THIS is why they say that a 5% reduction in weight is meaningful. Modest weight loss improvement over placebo seen with Lorcaserin is very meaningful.

It is also curious why the Q diabetes trial placebo showed 1.1% reduction while Lorc placebo only showed .4%. Again, there is something strange in the placebo results across the board between the two companies' trials.

I would also appreciate any feedback from learned scholars on what other data is meaningful and why.