I am curious about the below part of the article that states that 9 out of 24 patients with full data improved, but 6 had the best response. Plus, if I am reading this correctly, 1 patient remained stable. It seems then that 10 out of 24 patients with full data benefited at least to some extent. However, what about the ones that declined is one question that I have. In other words, I am curious about the degree of decline among the 14 patients that declined. Was their rate of decline less (a benefit), the same (no benefit), or more (a detriment) than the normal rate of decline of Alzheimer’s patients in general? See this part of the article:
“Dr. Afshar presented 57-week data for the 26 patients who were still in the trial at that point and 109-week data for the six patients who had the best response at 57 weeks. Patients in both analyses were grouped by plasma level, not by their dosage level, although Dr. Missling said higher dosage generally correlated with higher plasma levels.
At 57 weeks, six patients had improved on the MMSE: four with high plasma levels and two with low plasma levels – patients identified as “outliers.” One patient with a high level remained stable. The rest of the cohort declined: seven with low levels, eight with moderate levels, and four with high levels, who were also identified as outliers. Also at 57 weeks, 24 patients had full data on the functional measure, the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL). Nine patients had improved: five with high plasma levels, three with moderate levels, and one with a low level, identified as an outlier. One patient, with a moderate level, remained stable. The remaining 14 patients declined: nine with moderate levels, four with low levels, and one with a high level, dubbed an outlier.”
