Replies to post #130886 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

EXEL -

Given that 2 had increased narcotic use, and 9 decreased including 6 who dropped it entirely, the question remains whether you consider the data sufficiently objective.

Well. I wouldn't. Narcotic usage is driven by pain perception and perhaps even the results of the bone scan itself. And pain is notoriously subjective. I doubt that jq denies all benefit, and certainly I don't - but the bone scan data is, at best, interesting IMO.

PS I agree with jq regarding the fact that with the bone scan data being so dramatic you'd expect that if it was fully representative of disease state that the pain reduction would be greater.

[jq1234]

The data I quoted was from B57. In it there were 2 patients that increased narcotic use NOT 8.

That's the whole point. The data you and I cited depended on what set/subset patients we were looking at, thus doesn't give much predictive value.

By the way, the pain press release was terriblely written. This type of data should be left in a presentation, rather than press release.

Of the 27 patients with average worst pain =4 and taking narcotics at baseline, 15 (56%) decreased their dose by at least 30%, including 7 (26%) who discontinued narcotic drugs completely, 4 (15%) had a stable dose (no change or change =30%), and 8 (30%) increased narcotic drug usage.