3 ms·
While I agree in general, the article indicates this was stopped after 681 of a planned 725 patients, which seems okay. Additionally, my understanding from a q
by singingboyo 7y ago
While I agree in general, the article indicates this was stopped after 681 of a planned 725 patients, which seems okay.
Additionally, my understanding from a quick read is that the SPMS trials were aiming to delay progression in disability, rather than eliminate the effects altogether. That seems trickier to measure, and also more subject to just... not spending enough time looking at it.
Ebola, on the other hand, has a binary outcome (dead vs cured) with a timeline of a couple weeks, IIRC.
- justinclift 7y ago> Ebola, on the other hand, has a binary outcome (dead vs cured) with a timeline of a couple weeks, IIRC. Doesn't it leave (cured) people potentially permanently damaged as well? eg whatever organs were damaged, are still damaged
- hanniabu 7y agoI think what the parent meant was that it's terminal, so if you're alive then you win, even if you're not in the condition you were before.
- dahart 7y ago> While I agree in general, the article indicates this was stopped after 681 of a planned 725 patients, which seems okay. Are you talking about the European trial, referring to “358 patients with SP-MS were allocated placebo and 360 were allocated interferon beta-1b; 57 patients (31 placebo, 26 interferon beta-1b) were lost to follow-up.”? If so, your interpretation isn’t quite right. It’s not saying they stopped 57 patients short, it’s saying those 57 people didn’t participate at all, but that’s irrelevant to the early ending. The trial stopped short of it’s intended completion time, not short of a number of patients. The blog post indicates it was stopped 2 years early, out of a planned 2-3 year study period.