AI
| Followers | 141 |
| Posts | 5785 |
| Boards Moderated | 0 |
| Alias Born | 06/09/2020 |
Sunday, June 29, 2025 6:07:40 PM
This PDF documents the official recognition and regulatory validation of DCVax-L’s external control methodology by UK institutions.
“The Collaboration between NWBO and the UK – Part 1”
It shows that:
The APPGBT explicitly recommended replacing placebos with external controls—using NWBO as its only oncology case study.
The MHRA’s 2025 draft guidance endorses real-world and trial-derived external controls—fully aligned with the DCVax-L model.
The Pediatric Investigation Plan (PIP), approved by MHRA in 2022, confirms the same methodology was pre-approved for pediatric use.
The report dismantles common misinformation, including the claim that individual patient-level data (IPD) was not used in the DCVax-L trial.
✅ Yes, DCVax-L used individual patient-level data (IPD).
✅ Yes, it applied statistical weighting using MAIC to match external comparator trials.
✅ Yes, this was publicly documented at ASCO 2023, in JAMA Oncology
✅ Yes, this was publicly documented in a webinar with Dr. Liau and Dr. Musella (transcript available)
✅ Yes, the MHRA formally approved this design—before the APPGBT report was published.
❌ Claims that the trial lacked IPD-based matching are verifiably false.
Below is the full report in images, if you won't read it on its own.
“The Collaboration between NWBO and the UK – Part 1”
It shows that:
The APPGBT explicitly recommended replacing placebos with external controls—using NWBO as its only oncology case study.
The MHRA’s 2025 draft guidance endorses real-world and trial-derived external controls—fully aligned with the DCVax-L model.
The Pediatric Investigation Plan (PIP), approved by MHRA in 2022, confirms the same methodology was pre-approved for pediatric use.
The report dismantles common misinformation, including the claim that individual patient-level data (IPD) was not used in the DCVax-L trial.
✅ Yes, DCVax-L used individual patient-level data (IPD).
✅ Yes, it applied statistical weighting using MAIC to match external comparator trials.
✅ Yes, this was publicly documented at ASCO 2023, in JAMA Oncology
✅ Yes, this was publicly documented in a webinar with Dr. Liau and Dr. Musella (transcript available)
✅ Yes, the MHRA formally approved this design—before the APPGBT report was published.
❌ Claims that the trial lacked IPD-based matching are verifiably false.
Below is the full report in images, if you won't read it on its own.
Bullish
