InvestorsHub Logo

oneragman

09/04/17 10:23 AM

#113575 RE: ralphey #113574

Ralphy,
I doubt the FDA would have allowed them to run a trial with an arm not getting a statin. One arm is not getting proper treatment. Now, if V shows success, I can see another shorter trial done by the likes of the NIH comparing 2 proven drugs.

caddiedad

09/04/17 10:42 AM

#113578 RE: ralphey #113574

Perhaps it's called taking 4 grams of Vascepa by itself. 38 posts of defensive posturing without much substance. Some around here will keep feeding you chum, they can't help it.

bidmark

09/04/17 10:52 AM

#113580 RE: ralphey #113574

Have you contacted AMRN to inform them of this major flaw?

HDGabor

09/04/17 11:35 AM

#113584 RE: ralphey #113574

r-

In statin naive patients there may have been much better potential for success than in patients already taking - and success here would have opened the door for direct competition against statins

THIS IS A MAJOR FLAW AND MAY COST INVESTORS HUGELY



If R-IT is with statin naive patients and successful: Would you (prescribers) like (have enough proof) to subscribe V as add-in for patients already taking statin? Or not?

If R-IT is with statin naive patients and successful: Would you (prescribers) like (have enough proof) to subscribe V instead of statin? Or not?

If R-IT (as it is) is successful: Would you (prescribers) like (have enough proof) to subscribe V for statin naive patients? Or not?

If you answer honestly, you will know why is the design (patients already taking statin) what it is.

Best,
G