Replies to post #235996 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[PlentyParanoid]

Nope. What the graphs say based on phase 2a trial

1. There is at least 72 % confidence that PASI 75 response ratios for prurisol and placebo are truly different.
2. There is at least 75 % change that prurisol's PASI 75 response rate will be good enough for commercialization if we take PASI 75 response of 25 % being a lower limit for viability (as it has been in the past)
I think those are decent odds considering the phase 2a trial arm population.

Note: Graphs I posted don't say a thing based on phase 2b head counts, only what we had in phase 2a. But if things stay as they were in p2a then p2b numbers will be better, actually achieving statistical significance (I checked, p < 0.01 by Fisher Exact test) even without any response improvements with increased dose.

I usually don't like to play with trials I have no data... But this time, I do it just for you, SS. Don't tell anybody.

This is how things would look for phase 2b the Bayes way if response ratios will not change from phase 2a trial.


And here is p value sensitivity analysis for phase 2b done by Fisher way.

[DesireToLearn]

But we know P2b is different than P2a in many positive ways, which have been outlined already.

[williamssc]

Ha. I believe 25-50 puts us right inline with Otezla without the side effects. Bring it on.