(Total Views: 510)
Posted On: 10/18/2020 6:16:29 PM
Post# of 155192
There is a mistake in this section of my previous post.
The corrections are in red type.
If back on August 25 CytoDyn had simply applied the enrollment leverage they claim to currently have, then we would be at 302.36 patients as of today.
Supporting Calculations
The number of days between August 25 and October 18 = 54 days
The number of patients that could have been enrolled at 1.98 per day = 107.36 patients
The sum of patients: 195 + 107.36 = 302.36 patients
The worst part of this story is that if CytoDyn had simply done this, we'd only need 87.64 patients to achieve full enrollment. And at an enrollment rate of 1.98 patients per day, we would have achieved full enrollment in 44.26 days on December 1. And extending that to its logical conclusion, the fully-enrolled trial would be have been completely over 28 days later on December 29.
The corrections are in red type.
If back on August 25 CytoDyn had simply applied the enrollment leverage they claim to currently have, then we would be at 302.36 patients as of today.
Supporting Calculations
The number of days between August 25 and October 18 = 54 days
The number of patients that could have been enrolled at 1.98 per day = 107.36 patients
The sum of patients: 195 + 107.36 = 302.36 patients
The worst part of this story is that if CytoDyn had simply done this, we'd only need 87.64 patients to achieve full enrollment. And at an enrollment rate of 1.98 patients per day, we would have achieved full enrollment in 44.26 days on December 1. And extending that to its logical conclusion, the fully-enrolled trial would be have been completely over 28 days later on December 29.
(2)
(0)
