Yes and no. They had about 70 subjects per arm. If relative risk ratio is of order 0.75 (as they are reporting) then p-values should be impressive in that size trial. What is not so impressive is that the drug seems to work better with cumulative radiation below 60 Gy. What were the percentages for subject with radiation above 55 Gy, which is what IPIX and Soligenix reported? We don't know.
BTW: IPIX had (IN A SMALL TRIAL = TAKE IN WITH PLENTY OF MENTAL SALT, head counts per arm about 30 % of GALERA's) relative risk ratios 0.72 for all subjects receiving over 55 Gy radiation and .45 for their mysterious per protocol group.
So assuming that above numbers will hold in the future:
GC4419 seems to be, at best, as good as Brilacidin and if my hunch that it works better with low radiation doses is accurate - not as good as Brilacidin.
DO not put much value on the 96 % reduction in duration. Calculated in similar manner Brilacidin had duration reduction of 100 %. Those numbers are based on medians and are, by their lonesome, utterly, frivolously useless.
For those nitwits (there are bound to be some) who come and say that I can't say anything about Brilacidin SOM durations and particularly about median duration. Wrong, I can. Follow THIS:
These medians are based on ITT population, not on the number of subjects that had SOM. So, if less than 50 % of brilacidin subject had SOM then the median duration of SOM with Brilacidin can't be above 0 days because more than 50 % had SOM of ZERO duration. Clear?. Reduction from anything above zero to zero is 100 % reduction, always. Clear? GC4419 DID not have 100 % reduction but 96 % reduction AND that means more than 50 % of subjects treated with GC4419 had SOM. Clear?
Of course, there is slight chance that GALERA's scientist are completely off their rockers (that might explain 60 Gy fixation, for instance. A nuthouse) and are reporting reduction based on, say, 1st or 3rd quartile.
I hope that made it clear that reporting these types of reductions should be made criminal offense.
