“Understand your frustration. Seems like ordinarily results are not this drawn out.”
False, data from a “gold standard” trial can take weeks or more to analyze, even in a small trial. And yes, there is very recent proof of this.
Let’s use Synairgen’s recent trial for SNG001 in high risk COVID19 patients that are hospitalized or non-hospitalized. There were 220 patients in two arms, hospitalized and at home. The portion of the trial for the hospitalized patients, comprising 100 people, was fully enrolled on the 28th of May according to a company PR:
“Southampton, UK – 28 May 2020: Synairgen plc (LSE: SNG), the respiratory drug discovery and development company, is pleased to announce that recruitment of 100 hospitalised patients in its clinical trial of SNG001 (inhaled formulation of interferon- beta-1a) in COVID-19 patients has now been completed.”
The patients were followed for 28 days, per clinicaltrials.gov, so we can assume that the last hospitalized patient finished the trial on the 25th kf July. Synairgen didn’t publish the efficacy data from hospitalized patients, and the placebo arm, until the 20th of July. That’s 25 days later, and they didn’t even release the full data, stating, “ Further analysis will be conducted over the coming weeks and reported in due course.” I would suggest reading Synairgen’s PR on their limited data as it’s very professional and to the point. CYDY should take note.
https://www.synairgen.com/wp-content/uploads/...tients.pdf
So, the idea that CYDY isn’t analyzing the data quick enough doesn’t match with publication of similar trial data. Heck, even publishing simple data on adverse events, 4 days after unblinding, was difficult for CYDY (although I blame that on NP writing the PRs more than anything). My point: give CYDY and Amarex time to get the efficacy data analyzed correctly. The efficacy PR will be the most important PR in CYDY history and needs to be 100% accurate and well written.
False, data from a “gold standard” trial can take weeks or more to analyze, even in a small trial. And yes, there is very recent proof of this.
Let’s use Synairgen’s recent trial for SNG001 in high risk COVID19 patients that are hospitalized or non-hospitalized. There were 220 patients in two arms, hospitalized and at home. The portion of the trial for the hospitalized patients, comprising 100 people, was fully enrolled on the 28th of May according to a company PR:
“Southampton, UK – 28 May 2020: Synairgen plc (LSE: SNG), the respiratory drug discovery and development company, is pleased to announce that recruitment of 100 hospitalised patients in its clinical trial of SNG001 (inhaled formulation of interferon- beta-1a) in COVID-19 patients has now been completed.”
The patients were followed for 28 days, per clinicaltrials.gov, so we can assume that the last hospitalized patient finished the trial on the 25th kf July. Synairgen didn’t publish the efficacy data from hospitalized patients, and the placebo arm, until the 20th of July. That’s 25 days later, and they didn’t even release the full data, stating, “ Further analysis will be conducted over the coming weeks and reported in due course.” I would suggest reading Synairgen’s PR on their limited data as it’s very professional and to the point. CYDY should take note.
https://www.synairgen.com/wp-content/uploads/...tients.pdf
So, the idea that CYDY isn’t analyzing the data quick enough doesn’t match with publication of similar trial data. Heck, even publishing simple data on adverse events, 4 days after unblinding, was difficult for CYDY (although I blame that on NP writing the PRs more than anything). My point: give CYDY and Amarex time to get the efficacy data analyzed correctly. The efficacy PR will be the most important PR in CYDY history and needs to be 100% accurate and well written.
10
