Good day to all longs. The following is an exer
Post# of 148185
The following is an exercise on futility, but an exercise nevertheless ...
I was wondering what the published (preliminary) results of the LH trial mean contextually.
There were 24 symptoms measured and 8 results were published (baseline and 56 days). We know that 6 had no meaningful change and 1 (diarrhea) was worse, therefore 9 more showed improvement as well.
The question is: what can we expect from the whole set? . Do we have a shot at a good p-value for approval once we do our P3?
I analyzed the data we have, that we can consider as the best case scenario. Or, in other words, these are likely the best results. There are two big caveats: I assume the symptoms are not correlated and, we have enough data (large sampling space). None of them are true but, still, I am sharing my data-set & calculations in case somebody finds them useful (I do ):
The data is obviously very good with a p-value of 0.001406 This, of course, come from handpicked results. Once we add the not-so-good and no meaningful change and diarrhea this value is going to diminish.
The points: We need to choose carefully our LH trial end-point symptoms for independent non-correlated measures. Also, we definitely have a drug that affects with statistical significance (at least) some of the symptoms of COVID.
imo LH will be a huge market, I think that eventually, the treatment will be a combo of drugs of which LL will/should be a "core" part. We need to design the P3 trial carefully and, as the preliminary statistics show, we have an excellent shot at an approval in this area.