(Total Views: 488)
Posted On: 02/18/2021 10:36:12 AM
Post# of 148902
My, non medically educated #s sound like this:
394 patients in trial, 131 as placebo and 263 on vyrologix.
If we have 87 deaths, and assuming a 33% mortality average for severe/critical.
That would mean that 43 deaths in the placebo and 44 deaths in vyrologix arm.
If vyrologix did nothing, the deaths would be 87, not 44 to make the average 33%.
So, that means the # of deaths is half on vyrologix.
If the 87 deaths were even between placebo and vyrologix (meaning vyrologix did nothing), the mortality for the whole trial would need to be only 22%. This is possible, but given the data from the EIND patients where it was obvious that the patients got better even though many were on ventilators and ECMO, it is hard to believe we have anything less than a 50% reduction in mortality, IMO
394 patients in trial, 131 as placebo and 263 on vyrologix.
If we have 87 deaths, and assuming a 33% mortality average for severe/critical.
That would mean that 43 deaths in the placebo and 44 deaths in vyrologix arm.
If vyrologix did nothing, the deaths would be 87, not 44 to make the average 33%.
So, that means the # of deaths is half on vyrologix.
If the 87 deaths were even between placebo and vyrologix (meaning vyrologix did nothing), the mortality for the whole trial would need to be only 22%. This is possible, but given the data from the EIND patients where it was obvious that the patients got better even though many were on ventilators and ECMO, it is hard to believe we have anything less than a 50% reduction in mortality, IMO
(8)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
