(Total Views: 492)
Posted On: 08/26/2020 11:01:55 AM
Post# of 153986
Mrtuong34,
There was not error in m/m trial design. It was, I believe a surprise to see such a marked clinical improvement, as indicated by the NEWS2 score in a mild/moderate population.
It would have been really odd (and open to much criticism as is apparently everything Cytodyn related) to have a trial, whose inclusion criteria was defined by the components of the Primary endpoint and not utilize those criteria as the primary endpoint.
Could you explain how 2:1 was a mistake? Positive results were obtain with 33% more patients receiving leronlimab than would have received it had the trial been 1:1.
There was not error in m/m trial design. It was, I believe a surprise to see such a marked clinical improvement, as indicated by the NEWS2 score in a mild/moderate population.
It would have been really odd (and open to much criticism as is apparently everything Cytodyn related) to have a trial, whose inclusion criteria was defined by the components of the Primary endpoint and not utilize those criteria as the primary endpoint.
Could you explain how 2:1 was a mistake? Positive results were obtain with 33% more patients receiving leronlimab than would have received it had the trial been 1:1.
(0)
(0)
