Author Seeking Alpha post makes good point I th

Author Seeking Alpha post makes good point

I think a lot of us have been a bit unsettled by the mortality number in the CD 12 trial. (Or numbers, perhaps, since the presentation showed 45 deaths but Nader said, I believe, that it was more like 50 deaths.)

Since mortality in severe to critical cases tends to be about 25% nationwide, a trial of 195 cases WITHOUT Leron would indicate a mortality of 49 deaths. So some of us have concluded that LL provided no benefit, or not much.

But the author of the Seeking Alpha post says this, and I have the feeling he is right:

Quote:

---

I imagine that a lot of the patients in the CD12 trial were otherwise out of options. They were likely extremely severe or critical patients that were not responding to standard of care. Just as in the cases of EINDs, the doctors for these patients were likely looking for any last ditch therapies to save their patients. The Leronlimab trial was likely one of many that were available, but an intelligent doctor would look at the criteria of all trials and find the one most likely to benefit the individual patient in their care.

If that was the case, then it is likely that the mortality in the placebo arm was extraordinarily high. As we know, if that is true then the treatment arm will show statistical significance. On the off chance that the placebo arm saw the high end mortality of 40% (which I now think is very likely), then there would have been 52 statistical deaths (26 x 2) and 19 deaths in the treatment arm.

---

In other words, the trial might have had a lot of end-of-the-medical-rope cases, and therefore a much higher mortality than average. And if that's the case, Leron could well have a really good chance to shine, statistically.