(Total Views: 465)
Posted On: 11/28/2023 2:36:30 PM
Post# of 156272
Quick question from one of the medically ignorant masses here...
MASH/NASH are tough, many(every) trial failures to date; cancer even more costly and time consuming. It seems the FDA is steering us back toward HIV, which is how I got here in the first place, hopefully to address an unmet need rather than any nefarious reason.
That said, once we get past the hold, is there a good reason the company is not looking at an influenza trial and it's 300-500k annual deaths? From my unknowledgeable perspective, that would seem to me a relatively easier trial design and a shorter, lower cost path to follow. Thanks
MASH/NASH are tough, many(every) trial failures to date; cancer even more costly and time consuming. It seems the FDA is steering us back toward HIV, which is how I got here in the first place, hopefully to address an unmet need rather than any nefarious reason.
That said, once we get past the hold, is there a good reason the company is not looking at an influenza trial and it's 300-500k annual deaths? From my unknowledgeable perspective, that would seem to me a relatively easier trial design and a shorter, lower cost path to follow. Thanks
(1)
(0)
