I'm certainly moving more in the direction of this being a possibility. Not all the way there yet, but worth discussing for sure.
Lets assume this is the case. That would infer that they have obtained the 42 and 60 day data, yes? I would assume so if they are discussing it.
If in fact we do have data out to 60 days, it stands to reason that the mortality figures would be equal to or greater than the 87 previously stated.
And, that placebo mortality is equal to or greater than the 28 day mortality figures in the other trials that we have read.
So the question in my mind is: What are the discussions?
Is it asking for a PE change to 42/60 days?
Is it (as some have suggested) we barely missed at 28, but crushed it at 42 or 60?
Are there any scenarios here that dont end up with a positive result?
Lets assume this is the case. That would infer that they have obtained the 42 and 60 day data, yes? I would assume so if they are discussing it.
If in fact we do have data out to 60 days, it stands to reason that the mortality figures would be equal to or greater than the 87 previously stated.
And, that placebo mortality is equal to or greater than the 28 day mortality figures in the other trials that we have read.
So the question in my mind is: What are the discussions?
Is it asking for a PE change to 42/60 days?
Is it (as some have suggested) we barely missed at 28, but crushed it at 42 or 60?
Are there any scenarios here that dont end up with a positive result?
1
