Page 1 of 1

Laquinimod trial results

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:32 pm
by bromley
Don't appear that impressive - but it's oral.

http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?j913561424&w=464753

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:57 pm
by dignan
I think what Teva is most interested in is finding out in a phase 3 trial how well laquinimod plays with copaxone.

Re: Laquinimod trial results

Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:51 pm
by mjs
bromley wrote:Don't appear that impressive - but it's oral.
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%.

They also say:
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).
...which is quite offensive really. What it should say is:
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).
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.

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.

Re: Laquinimod trial results

Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 3:18 pm
by TonyJegs
mjs wrote: ...which is quite offensive really. What it should say is:
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).
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.

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.
Good work, and thank you the post.

Kind regards,
Tony