InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 27
Posts 5124
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/27/2014

Re: Foxwoods Man post# 9620

Thursday, 12/08/2016 2:49:49 PM

Thursday, December 08, 2016 2:49:49 PM

Post# of 43702
The rest of that paragraph...

On one occasion, in the spring of 2014, the IDMC made a recommendation that the study be closed for safety and efficacy reasons. However, following review of additional information submitted by us, the IDMC recommended that the study may continue. In the spring of 2016, with close to 800 patients enrolled, the IDMC made a recommendation that enrollment in the Phase 3 study should stop, but that patients already enrolled in the study should continue treatment and follow-up. We responded to this letter and indicated we would address the remaining three requests (generally relating to study design considerations) that were not part of the IDMC recommendation in a follow-up correspondence. However, before we could provide our follow-up response to the remaining three requests, the IDMC sent another letter (a) indicating that our initial letter responding to the IDMC recommendation was unresponsive and (b) also indicating that the IDMC was deeply concerned about patient safety in the trial based on its review of cumulative data. The IDMC's initial letter in the spring of 2016 did not mention that the IDMC was concerned about safety. Instead, the initial letter in the spring of 2016 noted that the study should be closed to further accrual, and that patients who had been randomized may continue treatment and should be followed. The statement that patients who had been randomized may continue treatment suggested to us that safety was not an issue. Because no safety concern had been raised by the IDMC since the spring of 2014, when, after further communications with us, the IDMC issued its recommendation that the study should proceed, we believed based on the entirety of the course of correspondence with the IDMC that acute safety was not an issue underlying the IDMC's recommendation to halt accrual in the spring of 2016. As noted above, all other correspondence to us from the IDMC from study initiation through September 2015, with the exception of the recommendation in spring 2014, stated that the IDMC recommends “the study may continue". We responded to the IDMC’s recommendation in Spring of 2016 with a statistical analysis showing that more patients were needed in order to complete the study in a reasonable amount of follow-up time, since the observed death rate in the study was lower than that which was predicted from the literature at the onset of the study. Subsequently a protocol amendment was prepared based on the analysis provided to the IDMC and submitted to FDA in July 2016, and a copy was then sent to the IDMC in response to its request for a copy of the submission. To date, we have not received a response from the IDMC regarding this protocol amendment. However, two months after the amendment was submitted to FDA, FDA placed the protocol on partial clinical hold. We expect to work through the concerns raised by the IDMC while we work through the partial hold with FDA. Ultimately, the decision as to whether our drug product candidate is safe and effective can only be made by FDA and/or by other regulatory authorities based upon an assessment of all of the data from an entire drug development program submitted as part of an application for marketing approval.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CVM News