What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***OFFICIAL CYDY/Leronlimab Thread*** (3 Viewers)

I'm going to reiterate, I think they are focusing on secondary endpoints in all of this talk about days 3, 7, 14. Below I copy/pasted their secondary endpoints since the primary only says day 14. If this is what they are hanging their hat on, and missed significance on the primary, I don't think the medical community will receive the news positively.
I assume it's safe to say that they know the primary endpoint results already? 

He's said several times the FDA doesn't have any of this info. Is that a good enough reason not to disclose the top line results and just vaguely talk about secondary endpoints?

 
Because doctors look at a trial that didn't meet its primary endpoint as a "failed trial" and many will dismiss out of hand any other data pulled from the trial. Now something COVID-related could be different, but that has been my experience. 
I guess I can understand that but these are wildly different times. Anything that is effective is going to get put into use. 
 

what was the primary endpoint again? He didn’t specify primary or secondary today right?

 
Because doctors look at a trial that didn't meet its primary endpoint as a "failed trial" and many will dismiss out of hand any other data pulled from the trial. Now something COVID-related could be different, but that has been my experience. 
Not sure if it's true or not, but NP did say that phase 2 trial endpoints are all in play, versus phase 3 endpoints which are more important as to which is the primary vs secondary.  They were asked whether they should've switched primary endpoings like some other company (regeneron?) and they said because it was phase 2 it was unecessary, and that those who did were phase 3 trials.

 
I guess I can understand that but these are wildly different times. Anything that is effective is going to get put into use. 
 

what was the primary endpoint again? He didn’t specify primary or secondary today right?
Think primary was just reduction in hospital days.

 
Surprising result from CD10 – didn’t think it would work in early viral phase or early immunological phase, but expected good results in later immunological phase
CD10 are even early in the progression of the virus
CD10 – will be broadly effective early in the disease progression

++++

NP
CD12
DSMC – organized as of today, meeting is set
Monday, Aug 3rd
Results due sometime during the next week


++++++

JL:
Encouraged since the outset, every piece of data is pointing more and more that this is going to work.
The sooner we get to CD12, the better.
 
These are good highlights.  So the DSMC is organized as of today and the meeting is set for Monday Aug 3.  Results due sometime during the next week.

I hope the DSMC finds that the CD12 can be stopped and get those patients in the placebo arm LL.  Next week could be a big week.  

 
Dexamethasone and tocilizumab can both be given with a subcutaneous shot.  I stopped trying to look up which drugs could be administered that way when it was 2 for 2.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Same place we were at before.  

Excited about results.  Should have m/m efficacy in 10 days.  Possible Nasdaq uplist mid-August.  Happy with sever results and will release safety results (didn't catch when, I thought it was in that 10 day time span too).  

Still not rich and sticking out the wild swings in stock price. 
Good opportunities for day trading this #####.

 
Whats so frustrating is that these guys really have no idea how to use data, or if they do they are sneaky.  Generally I'd say sneaky but we've seen them be buffoons so many times on PR, etc etc that they may just be baffoons.

Polish Hammer has a good point above.  They again selectively trickled out data.  Why just those datapoints.  Nader needed to say, I am only going to tell you the datapoints we have completed analysis on...and all the datapoints we have completed analysis on.  Anything less can be viewed as hiding information.  I find it hard to believe they do not have one single primary endpoint (at day 14) measured yet

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whats so frustrating is that these guys really have no idea how to use data, or if they do they are sneaky.  Generally I'd say sneaky but we've seen them be buffoons so many times on PR, etc etc that they may just be baffoons.

Polish Hammer has a good point above.  They again selectively trickled out data.  Why just those datapoints.  Nader needed to say, I am only going to tell you the datapoints we have completed analysis on...and all the datapoints we have completed analysis on.  Anything less can be viewed as hiding information.  I find it hard to believe they do not have one single primary endpoint (at day 14) measured yet
Hopefully someone can confirm, but he said something to that effect. That this is all the data that has been analyzed. Doesn't want to comment on more until everything is analyzed and they are legally clear. Still there is pause that top line results were not addressed, but I think he said "excellent top line results". Just waiting for everything to be analyzed.

 
Because doctors look at a trial that didn't meet its primary endpoint as a "failed trial" and many will dismiss out of hand any other data pulled from the trial. Now something COVID-related could be different, but that has been my experience. 
It’s the same in cancer trials, secondary endpoints are great to meet, but if they primary endpoint is not met the trial is a failure. 
 

Remember the statistics for a trial are driven by the primary endpoint. So in cancer if a drug slows progression of disease (as a secondary endpoint), but does not improve overall survival (as a primary endpoint) it is a negative trial. Though we can all agree cancer sucks and the secondary endpoint or slowing cancer is “good”. 
 

We will see if the FDA makes an exception for Covid drugs 🤷🏻‍♂️  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hopefully someone can confirm, but he said something to that effect. That this is all the data that has been analyzed. Doesn't want to comment on more until everything is analyzed and they are legally clear. Still there is pause that top line results were not addressed, but I think he said "excellent top line results". Just waiting for everything to be analyzed.
What the heck does the bolded even mean.  They're not analyzed...but I can tell you they are great.  How does that work.

What is meant by  topline.  Is that primary endpoint.  Is it SAE's?

 
It’s the same in cancer trials, secondary endpoints are great to meet, but if they primary endpoint is not met the trial is a failure. 
 

Remember the statistics for a trial are driven by the primary endpoint. So in cancer if a drug slows progression of disease (as a secondary endpoint), but does not improve overall survival (as a primary endpoint) it is a negative trial. Though we can all agree cancer sucks and the secondary endpoint or slowing cancer is “good”. 
Is there a difference in endpoint importance between Phase 1, 2 and 3 trials?

 
For anyone that watched the call, did they seem measured in the way they were hyping things up?  They have to be careful of projecting great results if the actual results are pretty dismal.  I was just wondering if they were genuinely enthusiastic, or if they were careful with their exact language.

 
-Phase I primary endpoint is safety and to find the dose to use in Phase II and III trials.

-Phase II is response (usually a single arm trial, but increasingly has a control arm).  Here you are just demonstrating the drug has a reasonable response. 

-Phase III primary endpoint is efficacy of the investigational agent against the standard of care (this can be placebo or active therapy).  If the trial is designed as superiority trial the investigational drug must show significant improvement compared to control (at a p value of <0.05 if double sided), this means you are 95% confident the difference you see is real.  If it doesn’t meet this, there is either no difference or the trial was under powered.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For anyone that watched the call, did they seem measured in the way they were hyping things up?  They have to be careful of projecting great results if the actual results are pretty dismal.  I was just wondering if they were genuinely enthusiastic, or if they were careful with their exact language.
NP is enthusiastic, and he's rarely measured. 

He said some results were "good" and the news2 or whatever results were "very good" with what came across on the phone as a wink, a nod, a foot stomp, and a grunt.  He did everything he could to convey good results, without outright saying it.  However, he wasn't willing or able to state that the results were significant.  That's what it boils down to.  They made the case that the results they're seeing are better than anyone elses out there right now, but they came up short in saying the differences between leronlimab groups and the placebo were statistically significant.  However, he strongly hinted that was the case in at least one secondary endpoint category.

 
Clinical Improvement as assessed by change in total symptom score (for fever, myalgia, dyspnea and cough) [ Time Frame: Day 14 ]
Note: The total score per patient ranges from 0 to 12 points. Each symptom is graded from 0 to 3. [0=none, 1=mild, 2=moderate, and 3=severe]. Higher scores mean a worse outcome.
 
So this is their primary outcome and honestly it looks like the secondary outcomes are actually more objective and would tell an even stronger story.

My guess now is the primary outcome didn't show statistical significance, but the secondary outcomes are just as good, if not better, at showing the effectivness of LL. If you look there's not much difference between the primary outcome and NEWS score. 

Kind of a dumb design, but if they hit on every other secondary outcomes it's still golden. Don't think MD can argue with those results.

Mild to moderate Study End points

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For anyone that watched the call, did they seem measured in the way they were hyping things up?  They have to be careful of projecting great results if the actual results are pretty dismal.  I was just wondering if they were genuinely enthusiastic, or if they were careful with their exact language.
NP seemed measured audio wise. Didn't see video.

 
-Phase I primary endpoint is safety and to find the dose to I’m use in Phase II and III trials.

-Phase II is response (usually a single arm trial, but increasingly has a control arm).  Here you are just demonstrating the drug has a reasonable response. 

-Phase III primary endpoint is efficacy of the investigational agent against the standard of care (this can be placebo or active therapy).  If the trial is designed as superiority trial the investigational drug must show significant improvement compared to control (at a p value of <0.05 if double sided), this means you are 95% confident the difference you see is real.  If it doesn’t meet this, there is either no difference or the trial was under powered.
Right, so having multiple secondary endpoints for a phase 2, and not meeting the primary endpoint, isn't a huge dealbreaker for a phase 2 trial if the secondary endpoints are great.

You would take measure of what worked, what didn't, and modify what you're looking at as your primary endpoint for the phase 3 trial which would be under much more scrutiny than the primary endpoint for a phase 2 trial - correct?

Or in this case, if the benefit is clear enough, you can get emergency approval from FDA, which it appears is what they're after.  Which to some extent explains their desire to do a rigorous analysis of the data, present the top line findings, and then hand over the data with a published paper at result completion date.  Can make a strong case for emergency approval at that point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NP is enthusiastic, and he's rarely measured. 

He said some results were "good" and the news2 or whatever results were "very good" with what came across on the phone as a wink, a nod, a foot stomp, and a grunt.  He did everything he could to convey good results, without outright saying it.  However, he wasn't willing or able to state that the results were significant.  That's what it boils down to.  They made the case that the results they're seeing are better than anyone elses out there right now, but they came up short in saying the differences between leronlimab groups and the placebo were statistically significant.  However, he strongly hinted that was the case in at least one secondary endpoint category.
But he couldn’t say it was statistically significant correct? 

 
Right, so having multiple secondary endpoints for a phase 2, and not meeting the primary endpoint, isn't a huge dealbreaker for a phase 2 trial if the secondary endpoints are great.

You would take measure of what worked, what didn't, and modify what you're looking at as your primary endpoint for the phase 3 trial which would be under much more scrutiny than the primary endpoint for a phase 2 trial - correct?
That would be a reasonable approach. Just not sure they would approve a drug based on a secondary endpoint in a phase II trial - they wouldn’t in cancer. 
 

This seems positive and enough for a phase III, just doesn’t seem like a HR for approval. 

 
That would be a reasonable approach. Just not sure they would approve a drug based on a secondary endpoint in a phase II trial - they wouldn’t in cancer. 
 

This seems positive and enough for a phase III, just doesn’t seem like a HR for approval. 
They wouldn't in cancer, but to treat a pandemic with a drug that shows better results than anything out there being used, they might.

 
But he couldn’t say it was statistically significant correct? 
Correct.  That seemed to be on purpose.  In 10 days in NP time the top line results will be released.  I expect to see at least the NEWS results be statistically significant as that's the only thing he harped on by saying "very positive" rather than just positive, or better than placebo.

 
They wouldn't in cancer, but to treat a pandemic with a drug that shows better results than anything out there being used, they might.
It would honestly be jaw-dropping if they didn’t, and I don’t say that just as a guy invested. If it’s safe get this stuff out there and see if it helps. We don’t have time on our side. 

 
It would honestly be jaw-dropping if they didn’t, and I don’t say that just as a guy invested. If it’s safe get this stuff out there and see if it helps. We don’t have time on our side. 
If it's safe, the SAE's are better than the standard of care, and the endpoints are better than the standard of care...seems like a no brainer.  The last point is key, but NP was strongly hinting that this was in play.  At the very least, it's another option as good as what's out there.

 
Doesn't mean anything at this point really, but the ask is currently 5.94 for CYDY.  Looking forward to seeing where it opens.

 
See, I didn't get that. I thought it sounded like he was over the top ready to jump out of his skin.
Compared to previous NP where he promised interim analysis at 50 patients and had to get slapped by the research team, I think today is him showing enthusiastic restraint.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only negative that I took from the call was the potential issue with manufacturing.  They will get 1.1MM vials this year but I don't think they will get anything from Samsung next year.  Is that what others understood?

 
If anyone wants off this ride, tomorrow is your chance.
I may do this because I think there will be opportunities to buy back lower. There’s too much speculation and over-analyzing on this thing. People will get (more) impatient and start dropping it back down next week. 
 

if I miss a huge pop, so be it. 

 
It sounded like whatever quantity commitment from manufacturing they’ve received previously has dropped multiple times.  I don’t recall where the final number was however. 

 
I may do this because I think there will be opportunities to buy back lower. There’s too much speculation and over-analyzing on this thing. People will get (more) impatient and start dropping it back down next week. 
 

if I miss a huge pop, so be it. 
I think this is where I’m at, sold all but 20% at this point for a nice profit. For the long play there will probably be some better entry points if covid treatment doesn’t pan out. Heck of a ride, what a call by Chet back in the quarter range. 

 
So I don’t know anything about the science but my main takeaway is that I don’t think we are going back to $2-3 per share and there’s very little chance I’ll lose money here. I think by EOY we’ll be in the 9-12 range as a baseline. 

 
See, I didn't get that. I thought it sounded like he was over the top ready to jump out of his skin.
At first when they started going over other results and talking about how how rough corona was, I was thinking oh god it’s a failure. He did pick up after that. 

 
So I don’t know anything about the science but my main takeaway is that I don’t think we are going back to $2-3 per share and there’s very little chance I’ll lose money here. I think by EOY we’ll be in the 9-12 range as a baseline. 
I agree with this. Until then, I can see it getting up as high as 6.5 and  Possibly dipping down in the high 4s. I know that’s very arbitrary from someone with very little experience, but I just don’t see it dropping back under 4 anytime soon. 
 

ETA: I mean until we get real data. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top