If there were a Triple Crown in diabetes, only one vendor would have won it. Not just once, but twice. Yes, Virta has won the equivalent of two Triple Crowns. They have not just three but six bright-line successes, each of which is unmatched by other vendors. They are the only diabetes vendor to:
- Earn the highest level of validation from the Validation Institute, and just got re-validated this month [citation to follow]
- Conduct a 5-year longitudinal study done to IRB-level specs showing both continued success and continued adherence (meaning minimal “survivor bias”)
- Be cited in the Peterson Health Technology Institute (PHTI) report on diabetes as the only diabetes vendor to save money, whereas all the other vendors “fail to deliver meaningful health benefits while increasing spending.”
- Be backed by the leading outcomes measurement guru and trade-bestselling author (and now CEO of Validation Institute) Al Lewis, with a $200,000 reward if any of those aforementioned other vendors would care to challenge the assertion that Virta is the best
- Be the only diabetes vendor in that report that does not pay money to middlepeople for referrals, and now…
- …be featured in the Wall Street Journal for a case study in its success in continued weight loss after someone has weaned off GLP-1s.
To the last point, it is unusual for people who get off GLP-1s to maintain the weight loss. And it’s much rarer still to continue to lose weight afterwards. Yet that’s exactly what happened here. Specifically, WSJ profiled a Virta user who had this to say:
After a few months, I found a highly structured nutrition program, one with expert coaching that focused on a low-carb diet. While the transition was difficult, it eventually helped me bring my cravings under control.
Virta Health, a startup I turned to for a few months, has users test their blood daily. The results, which measure glucose levels and another indicator of dietary compliance, are beamed through an app to a nutrition coach. Being aware that someone was watching—and would know if I had cheated—was immensely helpful as I sought to improve my nutrition and manage hunger.
True, data is not the plural of anecdotes, but the Peterson Report and Validation institute review data, not anecdotes. And no individual would risk $200,000 on an anecdote.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that they often get confused with their sound-alike, Vida, whose name, conversely, gives them the opportunity to be confused with Virta. That “coincidence” was coupled with their brilliant two-part strategy regarding the aforementioned PHTI report:
- Don’t submit any studies to PHTI for inclusion in their report;
- Complain that PHTI didn’t look at their studies in their report.
To the first point, PHTI lists cooperating vendors who submitted articles. (Virta submitted 12 to Vida’s 0.) To the second point, Vida found a venue to complain about this excellent report (and by “excellent” we mean “confirming what the Validation Institute and its principals have been saying for years”):
Vida says its diabetes programs are clinically proven to [reduce Hb A1c], as reflected in its body of peer-reviewed publications and the satisfaction of the “tens of thousands of members” who have found success with its diabetes program.
Not to be too semantic here on the latter point, but of course the people “who have found success” with your program will be satisfied.
The beauty of the Vida program is that their “peer-reviewed” article checks the boxes of not one, not two, but three fallacies in the Validation Institute’s series on valid measurement. Can you spot two right in this one paragraph?
Results: Participants with HbA1c ≥ 8.0% at baseline (n=1023) demonstrated a decrease in HbA1c of -1.37 points between baseline (mean: 9.84, SD: 1.64) and follow-up (mean: 8.47, SD: 1.77, p<0.001). Additionally, we observed a decrease in HbA1c of -1.94 points between baseline (mean: 10.77, SD: 1.48) and follow-up (mean: 8.83, SD: 1.94, p<0.001) among participants with HbA1c ≥ 9.0% (n = 618).
They measure active participants only (with some survivor bias thrown is, as a large number dropped out), and of course the people with the highest Hb A1c’s will show the greatest decline. That’s pure regression to the mean.
The third fallacy is that this is a “peer reviewed” article. “Our results have been peer-reviewed” has replaced “independent actuaries have shown savings” as the latest way to justify squirrely outcomes.
Not only that, but this article was written entirely by Vida employees. Not just any Vida employees but – this is not believable as a quote so we’ll do a screenshot –
Asked for comments or corrections, they replied that “our viewpoint” (translation: “our recitation of indisputable facts”) was “pretty baked in,” (translation: “our facts are indisputable.”)
And you know what else is indisputable? Vis-à-vis those six observations, Vida is no Virta.*
*Note to the literal-minded and also our liability insurer: the fifth observation implies that Vida does have “partnerships” with consulting firms and/or brokers. Those are very common in diabetes. However, we don’t know if Vida partakes. The easiest way to find out whether they (or anyone else) do? Use our RFP PowerTool in your procurement.
