For the severe/critical trial, Patterson for sure
Post# of 155142
(Total Views: 788)
Posted On: 06/06/2020 2:30:22 PM
For the severe/critical trial, Patterson for sure knows 100% as to the primary endpoint, mortality, because he knows that if vials stopping coming to his lab for particular patients.
At the day 3 sample, Patterson's CCR5 occupancy assay likely 100% discriminates between leronlimab and placebo.
So if no sample on day 7, Patterson knows the patient died.
Thus for the primary endpoint, mortality, Patterson keeps a running total and the p-value stats are trivial for him to calculate.
Only way Patterson is not 100% informed as to primary endpoint in real time is if the blood vials are not stamped with a patient identifier. Highly unlikely, in my opinion, that protocol includes random identifiers for each sample. Patient identifier for each sample should be maintained so as to not get things mixed up.
Ironically, Patterson is the ONLY person who knows the primary endpoint outcome in realy time.
Unless he told someone else
At the day 3 sample, Patterson's CCR5 occupancy assay likely 100% discriminates between leronlimab and placebo.
So if no sample on day 7, Patterson knows the patient died.
Thus for the primary endpoint, mortality, Patterson keeps a running total and the p-value stats are trivial for him to calculate.
Only way Patterson is not 100% informed as to primary endpoint in real time is if the blood vials are not stamped with a patient identifier. Highly unlikely, in my opinion, that protocol includes random identifiers for each sample. Patient identifier for each sample should be maintained so as to not get things mixed up.
Ironically, Patterson is the ONLY person who knows the primary endpoint outcome in realy time.
Unless he told someone else
(4)
(0)