Please explain the nature of Nadar's uncovering the failures..which is somewhat significant. Mono trial partially designed to uncover the cause of failures. Supported by the longer duration exposure correlation to Viral load loss of efficacy (perhaps resistance..just like what we are trying to solve in Haart)..Please address that specifically..Thank you!
Thank you gestalt2 for posting these quotes. There is some confusion for some surrounding this issue. Yes, we have discussed this before...multiple times...and with the same poster(s).... So I admire your patience! I am going to copy your message below and sticky this for new eyes. Thanks again!
gestalt2 post# 8791
this is what i found, and i do believe this was discussed before:
"According to the researchers, 10 of the 15 patients who were allowed to continue monotherapy with PRO 140 after the initial 12 weeks have now achieved virologic suppression for approximately 1.5 years. Maddon said four patients in the extension study experienced virologic failure — three of whom were receiving concomitant medications for concurrent infections, which may have contributed to the treatment failures — and one patient who had a viral load of 40 copies/mL at last visit withdrew from the study after relocating." - from the ASM microbe conference
and this: "The phase IIb enrolled 40 patients, and to whittle this down to the most promising, with the goal of carrying these most promising candidates through to the above mentioned extension. Of the 40, 35 were classed as evaluable, and 20 of these completed the 12-week viral load suppression period and became eligible for the extension. Fifteen of these 20 carried forward into the extension. Four of these 15 were disqualified (for reasons not related to the drug) and one was a treatment failure, so the extension ended up with 10 evaluables. One of these just reached a full two years of viral load suppression (the holy grail in this sort of therapy) and the remaining patients are all approaching this period." from insider financial