Page 1 of 1
MEDDAY'S MD1003 STUDY FAILS TO REACH PRIMARY ENDPOINT
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:29 pm
by seeva
Re: MEDDAY'S MD1003 STUDY FAILS TO REACH PRIMARY ENDPOINT
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:03 pm
by CureOrBust
You need to register to read the actual report. Checking Medways website, I found this page
http://www.medday-pharma.com/news-and-e ... f-md-1003/
with this quote
MedDay wrote:Patients who received MD1003 tended to improve slightly more than patients who received the placebo (3 letters mean improvement in the MD1003 arm versus 1.8 letters in the placebo arm) however the difference did not reach statistical significance and overall the study did not meet its primary endpoint.
Re: MEDDAY'S MD1003 STUDY FAILS TO REACH PRIMARY ENDPOINT
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:23 pm
by DrGeoff
And do please note that this study was directed at Optical Neuritis in progressive and relapsing forms.
And, like COB points out, the MD1003 worked - but not quite enough to meet statistical significance.
Also, consider what this tells us about MedDay - they are not attempting to massage the figures to make their product look better than it is. I have known researchers in the past who would wait until the data was in and then "design" the study to fit the data.
Geoff
Re: MEDDAY'S MD1003 STUDY FAILS TO REACH PRIMARY ENDPOINT
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2015 8:19 am
by David1949
Can we conclude then that MD1003 is another dud?
And what happened to the first study that showed positive results?
Re: MEDDAY'S MD1003 STUDY FAILS TO REACH PRIMARY ENDPOINT
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2015 1:43 pm
by DrGeoff
David1949 wrote:Can we conclude then that MD1003 is another dud?
And what happened to the first study that showed positive results?
If you conclude that, David, then you have failed to read the other posts in this thread.
The latest MD1003 trial was directed
specifically at Trigeminal Neuralgia.
Far from being a dud, it worked. It did not work well
enough to reach the relevant value for statistical significance for the number of participants involved in the trial. As a general guide, the lower the number of participants, the larger the required value of
p
As for the first study, the results have been presented at several conferences, and have generated a considerable amount of interest.
They have also led to the creation of several Facebook groups, at least one blog, have led to threads on several of the MS forums world wide, and you can find quite a lot about it here on TiMS.
The results of that study did meet statistical significance.
Geoff