What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***OFFICIAL CYDY/Leronlimab Thread*** (9 Viewers)

SOC Mortality rate was around 30% in the RLFTF trial.  Have not done a deeper dive to completely understand their inclusion criteria vs the leronlimab trial but at a VERY quick glance this may be a positive for CYDY.

Still feeling good today about CYDY overall.  Cmon NP give us the results!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just sold about 15%. Hedging a bit here. The RLFTF news makes me a bit nervous and the silence from CYDY is deafening, at least to 15% of me.

 
Dwayne Hoover said:
SOC Mortality rate was around 30% in the RLFTF trial.  Have not done a deeper dive to completely understand their inclusion criteria vs the leronlimab trial but at a VERY quick glance this may be a positive for CYDY.

Still feeling good today about CYDY overall.  Cmon NP give us the results!
Click to expand...
Thought I had read that for LL to get to a P value of <0.05, placebo mortality had to be above 31%.  Am I wrong on this?  RLFTF trial was 29.9%.

 
BassNBrew said:
Likely means they are scrambling to figure out how to spin this
Click to expand...
It's an easy spin that scientists use all the time: we need to run this same trial but with a larger sample size. With the same percent of efficacy, the results will be significant if only for a larger sample size.

 
unckeyherb said:
from another board:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2021/2/9/jebzt4D53CE75-CB5E-45BB-AC69-C7F939D667E8.png

Chart shows a huge jump in mortality from day 28 to day 42 in the RLFTF trial.  Didn't they ask CYDY to review the 42 day at 75%?  This is probably why
Click to expand...
The DSMC did recommend this as an endpoint but Nader declined doing the review at 75% where they would have looked at this. 

I have no idea if this can still be added in as it would change the protocol but acknowledge this may be a good argument on why the data is delayed.

 

 
Dwayne Hoover said:
The DSMC did recommend this as an endpoint but Nader declined doing the review at 75% where they would have looked at this. 

I have no idea if this can still be added in as it would change the protocol but acknowledge this may be a good argument on why the data is delayed.

 
Click to expand...
This was my thinking as well.  If there is a major success rate in increasing survival from 28 to 42, then they would certainly want to add that endpoint.  Like you said, not sure if they are allowed to add an endpoint after they've seen the data, but it would explain the delay.

 
This was one of the things that Don Hutson railed about that I was trying to get to the bottom of.

I don't consider him an expert but he was very adamant that patients couldn't be added to a new protocol after the fact.

I really would love to know the answer to this as it seems critically important.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dwayne Hoover said:
This was one of the things that Don Hutson railed about that I was trying to get to the bottom of.

I don't consider him an expert but he was very adamant that patients couldn't be added to a new protocol after the fact.

I really would love to know the answer to this as it seems critically important.  
Click to expand...
If you ever need an answer regarding this company lay out the two options...the right way of doing something and the wrong way.  Once you have done that, draw a line through the right way and you have your answer to any question.

 
Dwayne Hoover said:
This was one of the things that Don Hutson railed about that I was trying to get to the bottom of.

I don't consider him an expert but he was very adamant that patients couldn't be added to a new protocol after the fact.

I really would love to know the answer to this as it seems critically important.  
Click to expand...
honestly, if it shows serious efficacy at a 42 day endpoint, WGAF if its in the trial originally.

 
Chaz McNulty said:
Seems like this information would be easy for them to get.  Could they fog a mirror at day 42?
Click to expand...
Definitely seems like determining date of death is not an issue.  Were they fully tracking cause of death for these patients at that point (as in maybe the leronlimab therapy had nothing to do with cause)?  This is the part I don't know.  I would hope they would but have no idea

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The bullish argument for the reason why we don't have data yet is that this 42 day endpoint is being added in.

I'd like to believe this to be the case

 
I think the longer you can track both arms the more accurate picture of survival rate you get. I hope this is what they are doing as this was my only concern going from the 75% to the 100% decision.

 
dumb question, but the 42 day suggestion at 75% that we think Nader ignored...are we sure that he did?  Meaning are we sure they didn't add that endpoint when it was suggested?

 
Capella said:
I’m not sure anybody knows anything. All speculation. 
Click to expand...
reason I ask is that if the 42 day suggestion was taken by CYDY, that would put the last patient (at day 42) which would have been late January.  Jan 25th was what I read.  Might explain timeline as well.

 
As an IT project manager I really miss having a good Gant chart with solid milestones. Maybe I can ask for that in the next CC 😁

 
unckeyherb said:
reason I ask is that if the 42 day suggestion was taken by CYDY, that would put the last patient (at day 42) which would have been late January.  Jan 25th was what I read.  Might explain timeline as well.
Click to expand...
We inferred that NP ignored this because this was part of the 75% review that NP declined to have.

It certainly would be a brand new development if this endpoint is going to be put into the protocol.  

I hope it's possible, I just have no idea if it is.   The timing lines up though as to why its taking so long to get a topline report out.  I've been wishing this to be the case all along because I have to imagine if the DSMC was recommending it, than the data was going to help them at 42 days.

 
Dwayne Hoover said:
We inferred that NP ignored this because this was part of the 75% review that NP declined to have.

It certainly would be a brand new development if this endpoint is going to be put into the protocol.  

I hope it's possible, I just have no idea if it is.   The timing lines up though as to why its taking so long to get a topline report out.  I've been wishing this to be the case all along because I have to imagine if the DSMC was recommending it, than the data was going to help them at 42 days.
Click to expand...
This is definitely my hope as well and again, seems plausible.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #32
Replies
15
Views
958
Brunell4MVP
B
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
191K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
2K
GregR
GregR

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Top