(Total Views: 467)
Posted On: 01/03/2018 4:47:14 PM
Post# of 72446
I, for one, am liking the delayed onset data very much.
To give some perspective on the OM trial, regarding INCIDENCE if anyone delved into the 2nd half data (subtracted out the interim numbers) using as a comparison (either the MiTT population or the PP), the 2nd half data showed no difference between placebo and B-OM regarding INCIDENCE.
So that seemed put extra weight on DURATION, for which we were patiently waiting. But, then we get clear data showing delayed ONSET. This, to me, is critical data because it clearly adds another dimension to the usefulness of using B-OM. Even if patients get SOM, if you can delay it for 2-4 weeks, THAT ALLOWS MORE PATIENTS TO COMPLETE TREATMENT. And, that my friends is going to be advocated for by Oncologists.
So, considering overall data, we have 1) Overall Incidence reduced, 2) delayed ONSET and 3) possible decreased duration (too few for mathematical certainty).
I think 1+2+3 = DEAL ANYTIME NOW.
To give some perspective on the OM trial, regarding INCIDENCE if anyone delved into the 2nd half data (subtracted out the interim numbers) using as a comparison (either the MiTT population or the PP), the 2nd half data showed no difference between placebo and B-OM regarding INCIDENCE.
So that seemed put extra weight on DURATION, for which we were patiently waiting. But, then we get clear data showing delayed ONSET. This, to me, is critical data because it clearly adds another dimension to the usefulness of using B-OM. Even if patients get SOM, if you can delay it for 2-4 weeks, THAT ALLOWS MORE PATIENTS TO COMPLETE TREATMENT. And, that my friends is going to be advocated for by Oncologists.
So, considering overall data, we have 1) Overall Incidence reduced, 2) delayed ONSET and 3) possible decreased duration (too few for mathematical certainty).
I think 1+2+3 = DEAL ANYTIME NOW.
(5)
(0)
