Replies to post #72491 on Biotech Values

[rkrw]

There's a big difference between RRMS and SPMS. Secondary progressive are very sick patients but spms is also a really slow, long cycle to see change and nothing has been shown to work (unlike rrms). In the context of the bio ms trial, they're enriching the population for a marker called DR2+, but it's possible if it did have a beneficial effect the study may not be long enough to prove it. The bio ms phase 2 trial in spms was very small, it actually did fail but showed the effect in the dr2+, which may have been just data dredging. Did they enrich the rrms phase 2? If no material differences despite the marker, that may be a bad sign.

[iwfal]

They defined meeting a secondary end point as p < .15 though they did say at least one end point was < .05. They will publish the data at some scientific meeting in the future.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of statistics. With 4 or 5 secondaries and sugar water will be positive on 30+ percent of trials.