Sunclouds wrote,
This post got 7 lines and a couple people chiming in to say agree 100%.
But did they not read Ohm's earlier post? Leron improved Progression-free survival by over 29%. The overall survival was an improvement too -- less of an improvement, but the datum was labeled 1.2 months PLUS because some patients had not died yet (and maybe still haven't). Meanwhile, Ohm posted a list of the SOC's quite crappy side-effects, while Leron has few-to-none.
Overall, yes, our submitted data was up to the standards of BTD. The data WAS superior to the SOC. I do not agree 100% with Suncloud's post. The figure is closer to zero percent.
Quote:The company should understand competition and know that our submitted data was not up to the standards of BTD.
In addition, I wonder why it took so much time to hear back from the FDA as they could quickly see that the data was not superior to a drug recently approved.
This post got 7 lines and a couple people chiming in to say agree 100%.
But did they not read Ohm's earlier post? Leron improved Progression-free survival by over 29%. The overall survival was an improvement too -- less of an improvement, but the datum was labeled 1.2 months PLUS because some patients had not died yet (and maybe still haven't). Meanwhile, Ohm posted a list of the SOC's quite crappy side-effects, while Leron has few-to-none.
Overall, yes, our submitted data was up to the standards of BTD. The data WAS superior to the SOC. I do not agree 100% with Suncloud's post. The figure is closer to zero percent.
15
