Good morning !!! There have been some reference
Post# of 153802
(Total Views: 1220)
Posted On: 07/12/2020 8:57:37 AM
Re: Rex Eupseiphos #42387
Good morning !!!
There have been some references to “large” p-values.
The important values for us are the ones that depict patient progression after administration of Leronlimab. Namely: IL-6, %CD8, CD4/CD8 ratio and Viral load. ALL of them are significantly small (p<0.05).
Maybe the reference is to those comparing relative cytokine & chemokine levels for healthy-mild/moderate-critical patients ?. Those do not have anything to do with Leronlimab and don’t depict any changes in patient levels vs time, and are simply illustrating how these cytokine/chemokine levels compare with patient severity progression. I think Dr. Patterson was trying to make the point here that there is indeed a large difference for CCL5 (and perhaps IL-6) and that all the markers increase from healthy to critical.
Yes, the number of patients is small, and the clouds dispersions are large (either because of the small cohort, or because this is what happens clinically with us, humans) but heck, the paper was written for this umber of patients, and, as you well mention, are way underpowered (this includes the Leronlimab results).
My point being: the published Leronlimab-dependent p-values for this study are all small.
Also, Dr. Patterson added comparison with healthy patients (please refer to IL-6, %CD8 and CD4/CD8 ratio), in all of these cases there is no (statistical) difference between the 14 Day post Leronlimab measurements and healthy individuals, even though with larger dispersion.
The trial will add precisely the power necessary to convince the FDA and, to the world, that these measurements mean that the patients will/are improving.
There have been some references to “large” p-values.
The important values for us are the ones that depict patient progression after administration of Leronlimab. Namely: IL-6, %CD8, CD4/CD8 ratio and Viral load. ALL of them are significantly small (p<0.05).
Maybe the reference is to those comparing relative cytokine & chemokine levels for healthy-mild/moderate-critical patients ?. Those do not have anything to do with Leronlimab and don’t depict any changes in patient levels vs time, and are simply illustrating how these cytokine/chemokine levels compare with patient severity progression. I think Dr. Patterson was trying to make the point here that there is indeed a large difference for CCL5 (and perhaps IL-6) and that all the markers increase from healthy to critical.
Yes, the number of patients is small, and the clouds dispersions are large (either because of the small cohort, or because this is what happens clinically with us, humans) but heck, the paper was written for this umber of patients, and, as you well mention, are way underpowered (this includes the Leronlimab results).
My point being: the published Leronlimab-dependent p-values for this study are all small.
Also, Dr. Patterson added comparison with healthy patients (please refer to IL-6, %CD8 and CD4/CD8 ratio), in all of these cases there is no (statistical) difference between the 14 Day post Leronlimab measurements and healthy individuals, even though with larger dispersion.
The trial will add precisely the power necessary to convince the FDA and, to the world, that these measurements mean that the patients will/are improving.
(8)
(0)