(Total Views: 560)
Posted On: 07/22/2020 12:13:36 PM
Post# of 153988
Not enough talk here highlighting the logic mentioned by a few here:
If drug had zero effect, one would expect SAEs between the two groups to be equal.
If drug had worse effect, one would expect SAEs for drug group to be higher than placebo.
What would one conclude if drug group had LESS SAEs than placebo? SAEs in drug group were not attributable to the drug. Question is are the SAEs in the placebo group caused by not having the drug or are they random events not attributable to not having the drug. Assuming the former, I would say that this is more 'anecdotal' evidence of the efficacy of the drug. With the latter, can't really conclude anything about efficacy.
So what do you as an investor think is likely?
If drug had zero effect, one would expect SAEs between the two groups to be equal.
If drug had worse effect, one would expect SAEs for drug group to be higher than placebo.
What would one conclude if drug group had LESS SAEs than placebo? SAEs in drug group were not attributable to the drug. Question is are the SAEs in the placebo group caused by not having the drug or are they random events not attributable to not having the drug. Assuming the former, I would say that this is more 'anecdotal' evidence of the efficacy of the drug. With the latter, can't really conclude anything about efficacy.
So what do you as an investor think is likely?
(1)
(0)
