Don't appear that impressive - but it's oral.
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?j913561424&w=464753
Laquinimod trial results
Re: Laquinimod trial results
Unimpressive is definitely the right description. Even drugs that reduce lesions *and* relapses are unimpressive - all this drug does is reduce lesions by a mere 38%.bromley wrote:Don't appear that impressive - but it's oral.
They also say:
...which is quite offensive really. What it should say is:Significant differences in favor of the 0.6 mg dose were found for most examined secondary and exploratory MRI-based outcome measures. Trends favored the group receiving the 0.6 mg dose on measures of annual relapse rate (0.52 +/- 0.92 vs. placebo 0.77 +/- 1.25; p = 0.21), relapse-free subjects (70.8 percent vs. 62.7 percent; p = 0.33) and time to first relapse (p = 0.14).
The "p=" part must always be <0.05. P values of 0.21, 0.33 and 0.14 mean the data is completely and utterly meaningless.STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT differences in favor of the 0.6 mg dose were found for most examined secondary and exploratory MRI-based outcome measures. Trends favored the group receiving the 0.6 mg dose on measures of annual relapse rate (0.52 +/- 0.92 vs. placebo 0.77 +/- 1.25; p = 0.21), relapse-free subjects (70.8 percent vs. 62.7 percent; p = 0.33) and time to first relapse (p = 0.14).
It's like saying that a glass of water a day has a significant impact on MS, however, there is a high probability this may be false.
- TonyJegs
- Family Member
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:00 pm
- Location: Illinios (+ Europe)
- Contact:
Re: Laquinimod trial results
Good work, and thank you the post.mjs wrote: ...which is quite offensive really. What it should say is:The "p=" part must always be <0.05. P values of 0.21, 0.33 and 0.14 mean the data is completely and utterly meaningless.STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT differences in favor of the 0.6 mg dose were found for most examined secondary and exploratory MRI-based outcome measures. Trends favored the group receiving the 0.6 mg dose on measures of annual relapse rate (0.52 +/- 0.92 vs. placebo 0.77 +/- 1.25; p = 0.21), relapse-free subjects (70.8 percent vs. 62.7 percent; p = 0.33) and time to first relapse (p = 0.14).
It's like saying that a glass of water a day has a significant impact on MS, however, there is a high probability this may be false.
Kind regards,
Tony
"All truth passes through three stages.
First it is ridiculed.
Second it is violently opposed.
Third it is accepted as being self-evident."
Schopenhauer
First it is ridiculed.
Second it is violently opposed.
Third it is accepted as being self-evident."
Schopenhauer
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post