I'm listening to the arguments as to why the m/m or s/c trial is more likely to be statistically significant. But is "significant" all there is to "important?"
I've been seeing another figure of merit: how many patients do you have to treat to save one life? Clearly, that metric favors using the (presumably limited) doses of leronlimab in the s/c setting, where death is otherwise imminent for a substantial fraction of patients, even though a few patients might be unsalvageable.
For the m/m benefit calc, there would need to be some estimate of what fraction of patients "saved" by leronlimab (from progressing to s/c) would have eventually died.