I wholeheartedly agree that we deserve the EUA for
Post# of 148179
But we are not GILD. We are just a small company with a very good drug. It should not mater but it does.
So, what would an impartial and efficient agency do ??? Well, study carefully the secondary outcomes:
Quote:
1. Time to clinical resolution (TTCR) [ Time Frame: Day 14 ]
2. Change from baseline in National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) [ Time Frame: Days 3, 7, and 14 ]
This score is based on 7 clinical parameters (respiration rate, oxygen saturation, any supplemental oxygen, temperature, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, level of consciousness). Higher scores mean a worse outcome.
3. Change from baseline in pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) [ Time Frame: Days 3, 7, and 14 ]
4. Change from baseline in the patient's health status on a 7-category ordinal scale [ Time Frame: Days 3, 7, and 14 ]
A 7-category ordinal scale of patient health status ranges from: 1) Death; 2) Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3) Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4) Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5) Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen; 6) Not hospitalized, limitation on activities; 7) Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities.
Lower scores mean a worse outcome.
5. Incidence of hospitalization [ Time Frame: Day 14 ]
6. Duration (days) of hospitalization [ Time Frame: Day 14 ]
7. Incidence of mechanical ventilation supply [ Time Frame: Day 14 ]
8. Duration (days) of mechanical ventilation supply [ Time Frame: Day 14 ]
9. Incidence of oxygen use [ Time Frame: Day 14 ]
10. Duration (days) of oxygen use [ Time Frame: Day 14 ]
11. Mortality rate [ Time Frame: Day 14 ]
12. Time to return to normal activity [ Time Frame: Day 14 ]
We know we barely missed the primary outcome (according to NP). We know we succeeded statistically In point 2 of Secondary outcomes (NEWS2 Per Patient Population p<0.03 and p<0.02 days 3 and day 14 respectively). We probably did well in point 1 TTCR, however I have no idea if this was statistically significant.
Point 3 is also probably good as is part of the NEWS2 measurement (actually there are two items, Scale 1 and scale 2 for SpO2 and BOTH score points in NEWS2). Point 5 is probably good as there were much less SAEs in Leronlimab than in Placebo. The same can be said for 5-11.
However, imo, the KEY part are other outcome measures:
Quote:
1. Change in size of lesion area by chest radiograph or CT [ Time Frame: Day 14 ]
2. Change from baseline in serum cytokine and chemokine levels [ Time Frame: Days 3, 7, and 14 ]
3. Change from baseline in CCR5 receptor occupancy levels for Tregs and macrophages [ Time Frame: Days 3, 7, and 14 ]
4. Change from baseline in CD3+, CD4+ and CD8+ T cell count [ Time Frame: Days 3, 7, and 14 ]
The patients were being monitored with blood-work. If I am the FDA and somebody shows me in charts a comparison between placebo and Leronlimab cohorts for the first days and I see a marked difference, I don’t need further proof.
Say, for example, the CD4/CD8 ratio goes down to normal levels more rapidly with LL than in placebo… or the cytokine/chemokine levels go down dramatically one does not have to be a genius to conclude that the drug is working and the statistically-significant clinical outcomes of NEWS2 can be explained by these numbers. Period.
My point: I am putting my money in the rest of the supporting evidence to convince the FDA that Leronlimab works.
Now, if we don’t get a positive response there are three possibilities:
-- Leronlimab simply does not work for M2M COVID-19
-- The data is good but not conclusive (P3 necessary), or, in other words: Leronlimab works but is not the last frozen coca-cola in the dessert.
-- The FDA is corrupt and, in spite of obvious benefit, will slow-walk us until GILD and/or other FDA-contributing BPs launch their less efficacious products.
We will know more on Wednesday.