BMTI...read the results...look good to me at first glance, and the price is rising a bit....
Do you think this is the reason for the reaction?
The difference between the modified ITT (intent-to-treat) results which left out the 37 patients not treated, and the inclusion of that group as failures in the strict ITT group?
from your link...
...The data above reflect the results of the 397 patient “modified intent-to-treat” (mITT) study population. Thirty-seven (37) patients were excluded from this analysis, 21 of which were randomized but never treated and 16 which had major protocol deviations which were prospectively identified (e.g. midfoot fusions even though these were a specific exclusion criteria). Thus, the mITT population represents over 90% of all randomized patients and over 95% of all treated patients.
On a strict intent-to-treat (ITT) population in which those patients who were randomized but never treated are counted as automatic failures, 24 week fusion rates on CT scans were 57.9% for patients randomized to Augment and 60.4% for patients randomized to autograft (p=0.065; n=434). On a per joint basis the CT fusion rate was 65.2% for Augment compared to 64.6% for autograft (p=0.004; n=631). Clinical union rate for the ITT population was 79.6% for the Augment group and 79.2% for the autograft group (p=0.004; n=434). The delayed/nonunion rate on the ITT population was 8.1% in the Augment group and 10.7% for the autograft group (p=0.015; n=434)....
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
