Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***OFFICIAL CYDY/Leronlimab Thread***


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, adonis said:

So again, wouldn't you expect the best case scenario for any "safe" drug to be equivalent to the placebo if that is water/saline?  What would ever make that significantly better than placebo?

All they are saying is it was no worse than a placebo for that group.  Not every condition is going to be represented in that small population.  Not to mention that we don't know what the SAEs were or their severity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 9.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes, go ahead FC42

I closed.  Cydy operation mountain house completed.

Fear is a disease.  Get rid of it or you're doomed for failure.  Though I did hear Leronlimab cures it. This is NOT an investment.  It is a Grand Slam Home Run or a Strike Out gamble in the stock

7 minutes ago, adonis said:

So again, wouldn't you expect the best case scenario for any "safe" drug to be equivalent to the placebo if that is water/saline?  What would ever make that significantly better than placebo?

More participants than I can count on my toes and fingers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, pmedina said:

I’m 🤞 the efficacy data is also good, just not basing it off of AE data!!

👍 - not trying to give you a hard time, just truly curious how to look at it another way.

I'm trying to understand a perspective that doesn't make it look like Nader is misrepresenting the results.

Edited by adonis
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, eoMMan said:

A successful vaccine that is available in a relatively quick time-frame would be bad for CYDY, right? 

I don't think it is a good thing, but even with a vaccine there will still be needs for treatment. People will still get COVID, especially in the short term.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, pmedina said:

Last academic posting (I promise).  Here is a nice review of significant AEs seen with placebo arms in a variety of immunotherapy trials in cancer. In no way do they link these to the active therapy being more effective than placebo. 
 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2717560

 

Love the analysis. That is what is great about this board. So many people with so much knowledge in so many areas. 

Thank you for sharing.  Don't stop.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One topic that's been discussed a lot lately is SAE and the relation to potentially considering that a measure for efficacy. The bottom line is you can't really know exactly how they are going to interplay. However, there could be commonality if you look at the things that the FDA considers to be an SAE and cross reference that with the list of items that were being scored for the primary outcome of the study. There's probably going to be some crossover between those lists, but there's no way to know for sure until they release the data whether or not that overlap is actually occurring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, chet said:

Trying to figure out if LL kept the number of SAEs down in the drug arm.  Thx

So I know pretty much nothing about medicine — but from a pure statistical standpoint, I think your two-proportion test is as good as it gets for us laymen. Potentially making adjustments based on certain patients getting multiple SAEs would require medical expertise and more data, and I have neither.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, pmedina said:

Last academic posting (I promise).  Here is a nice review of significant AEs seen with placebo arms in a variety of immunotherapy trials in cancer. In no way do they link these to the active therapy being more effective than placebo. 
 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2717560

 

Always enjoy the input.  Serious question.

It was suggested earlier that SAE's would only be recorded if they could be tied to the drug.

If that's the case, how can SAE's be recorded for the placebo group?  This is a double-blinded study.  How can anyone involved who is scoring what constitutes an SAE has no idea who got the drug or not.  This whole thing is complicated.  So I have two questions:

1) If SAE's are only adverse events that can be attributed to the drug, how can anyone in the placebo group have an SAE since they're given only saline?
2) If the trial is double-blinded, how can folks assess whether an adverse event is related to the drug or not?  Is this only done after unblinding?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Capella said:

Oh you know this is in play 

I'll ask again. He's not the only dude in the room. Are they all buffoons? I don't think so. I think Kelly is a pretty sharp guy. Is he in constant damage control?

If I'm in management there, I observe that whenever NP does his shill-show, the stock price goes down. If I get fired, fine, then accelerate my options and I'll cash out and adi-effing-os. 

This dude single-handedly has cost us millions and millions of dollars in market cap.

SENSATIZE

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, eoMMan said:

A successful vaccine that is available in a relatively quick time-frame would be bad for CYDY, right? 

Depends, are you in it for the Covid, or, the Cancer/HIV? I'm here for the latter. Covid success is just a small part of the overall LL picture, IMO

#notselling

:banned:

 

Edited by drunken slob
Link to post
Share on other sites

FDA Significant Adverse Events

Just now, Charlie Harper said:

An adverse event is any undesirable experience associated with the use of a medical product in a patient. The event is serious and should be reported to FDA when the patient outcome is:

Death
Report if you suspect that the death was an outcome of the adverse event, and include the date if known. 

Life-threatening
Report if suspected that the patient was at substantial risk of dying at the time of the adverse event, or use or continued use of the device or other medical product might have resulted in the death of the patient.

Hospitalization (initial or prolonged)
Report if admission to the hospital or prolongation of hospitalization was a result of the adverse event.

Emergency room visits that do not result in admission to the hospital should be evaluated for one of the other serious outcomes (e.g., life-threatening; required intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage; other serious medically important event).

Disability or Permanent Damage
Report if the adverse event resulted in a substantial disruption of a person's ability to conduct normal life functions, i.e., the adverse event resulted in a significant, persistent or permanent change, impairment, damage or disruption in the patient's body function/structure, physical activities and/or quality of life.

Congenital Anomaly/Birth Defect
Report if you suspect that exposure to a medical product prior to conception or during pregnancy may have resulted in an adverse outcome in the child.

Required Intervention to Prevent Permanent Impairment or Damage (Devices)
Report if you believe that medical or surgical intervention was necessary to preclude permanent impairment of a body function, or prevent permanent damage to a body structure, either situation suspected to be due to the use of a medical product.

Other Serious (Important Medical Events)
Report when the event does not fit the other outcomes, but the event may jeopardize the patient and may require medical or surgical intervention (treatment) to prevent one of the other outcomes. Examples include allergic brochospasm (a serious problem with breathing) requiring treatment in an emergency room, serious blood dyscrasias (blood disorders) or seizures/convulsions that do not result in hospitalization. The development of drug dependence or drug abuse would also be examples of important medical events.

Kudos to Polish Hammer for the link. I think this helps us infer if we could get anything from the significance of the SAE. I think in this case it can.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm settled on all we can deduce from the SAE data is that leronlimab doesnt cause SAE.  If you notice, in the PR it specifically calls out that the SAE's were not caused by LL.  It didnt say well because we observed less SAE than the placebo that therefore we can conclude it is safe.  Similarly, if the LL cohort DID have more SAE's that on its own wouldn't mean it caused more SAE's.

In this case the whole reference to SAE%'s is not worth a conclusion and potentially misleading (although not necessarily intentionally misleading...data is data).

I am optimistic that there was some correlation, but assuming that is a leap.  Fortunately not one needed to take once the efficacy data comes out (at least until we encounter the data saga sure to come with that)

Confusing, yes. 

Edited by djmich
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, adonis said:

Always enjoy the input.  Serious question.

It was suggested earlier that SAE's would only be recorded if they could be tied to the drug.

If that's the case, how can SAE's be recorded for the placebo group?  This is a double-blinded study.  How can anyone involved who is scoring what constitutes an SAE has no idea who got the drug or not.  This whole thing is complicated.  So I have two questions:

1) If SAE's are only adverse events that can be attributed to the drug, how can anyone in the placebo group have an SAE since they're given only saline?
2) If the trial is double-blinded, how can folks assess whether an adverse event is related to the drug or not?  Is this only done after unblinding?  

Good question:

 

1) That’s the difficult part, but the article linked explains how placebo arms can have AEs. It is was one way to tell if an AE is related to a drug though. Let’s say we saw significant hypertension with Len, but saw the same rated in the placebo group. That AE would likely be attributed to factors besides Len (such as disease process). 
 

2) That is usually why investigators usually attribute to a drug, unless clearly not related, and why they are saying not drug related is a big deal. What you are looking for are differences between the two arms. Let’s say Len caused neutropenia in 50% of patients and placebo caused neutropenia in 15% of patients. In each case we would attribute to drug or not when still blinded, at unblinding we would note the difference and say Len caused neutropenia in patients. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Polish Hammer said:

One topic that's been discussed a lot lately is SAE and the relation to potentially considering that a measure for efficacy. The bottom line is you can't really know exactly how they are going to interplay. However, there could be commonality if you look at the things that the FDA considers to be an SAE and cross reference that with the list of items that were being scored for the primary outcome of the study. There's probably going to be some crossover between those lists, but there's no way to know for sure until they release the data whether or not that overlap is actually occurring.

Great posting.  So if we assume that the event is not being hit by a bus, and the event is something like having to go on breathing support, then the SAE's could technically spill over into other outcomes of the study.  A patient needing breathing support will probably remain hospitalized longer than one that doesn't.

I think there is definitely a relationship with SAE's and some of the endpoints.

Edited by Chaz McNulty
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Charlie Harper said:

FDA Significant Adverse Events

Kudos to Polish Hammer for the link. I think this helps us infer if we could get anything from the significance of the SAE. I think in this case it can.

I think the only thing worth calling out is that this implies an SAE occurs only if it is associated with the medical product.  I think there are SAE's and then SAE's that can be associated with the product.

There were a bunch of SAE's from the placebo...no way the placebo caused them.

Edited by djmich
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pmedina said:

Good question:

 

1) That’s the difficult part, but the article linked explains how placebo arms can have AEs. It is was one way to tell if an AE is related to a drug though. Let’s say we saw significant hypertension with Len, but saw the same rated in the placebo group. That AE would likely be attributed to factors besides Len (such as disease process). 
 

2) That is usually why investigators usually attribute to a drug, unless clearly not related, and why they are saying not drug related is a big deal. What you are looking for are differences between the two arms. Let’s say Len caused neutropenia in 50% of patients and placebo caused neutropenia in 15% of patients. In each case we would attribute to drug or not when still blinded, at unblinding we would note the difference and say Len caused neutropenia in patients. 

Thanks for the response.  Helpful to talk this through, and by all means i'm not saying i'm right, just trying to think through stuff.

My central point is that what seems to be happening is during the course of the trial, patients are self-reporting SAE's or they're being recorded by the doctors.  At the time, they're double-blinded so they're just recorded as a patient having a bad adverse affect that seems related or noteworthy.  To me, the fact that this self-reporting, or reports by doctors for patients in the leronlimab wing is 'significantly' (my word) less than in the placebo group, indicates to me that individuals receiving leronlimab experienced as a whole fewer adverse effects to report.

Once the trial is unblinded, or people authorized take a peek and categorize the SAE's, they looked at the ones attributed to patients in the leronlimab wing and decided that NONE of the reported SAE's were truly related to leronlimab.

So you have a ton of SAE's reported in the placebo group, where no drug was given but saline.  These are bad effects people have.  Then in the leronlimab group, LESS folks have bad side effects, and of those that do, none are related to leronlimab.

To me, that not only shows the safety of leronlimab, but the difference in SAE's seems relevant.  If 2 populations are given different shots, and one group that's double the size of the other ends up having fewer reports of people feeling ####ty, that seems important.

Again, i'm not shutting you down...i'm presenting this view to see where the weakness is and to get further feedback.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

Thanks for the response.  Helpful to talk this through, and by all means i'm not saying i'm right, just trying to think through stuff.

My central point is that what seems to be happening is during the course of the trial, patients are self-reporting SAE's or they're being recorded by the doctors.  At the time, they're double-blinded so they're just recorded as a patient having a bad adverse affect that seems related or noteworthy.  To me, the fact that this self-reporting, or reports by doctors for patients in the leronlimab wing is 'significantly' (my word) less than in the placebo group, indicates to me that individuals receiving leronlimab experienced as a whole fewer adverse effects to report.

Once the trial is unblinded, or people authorized take a peek and categorize the SAE's, they looked at the ones attributed to patients in the leronlimab wing and decided that NONE of the reported SAE's were truly related to leronlimab.

So you have a ton of SAE's reported in the placebo group, where no drug was given but saline.  These are bad effects people have.  Then in the leronlimab group, LESS folks have bad side effects, and of those that do, none are related to leronlimab.

To me, that not only shows the safety of leronlimab, but the difference in SAE's seems relevant.  If 2 populations are given different shots, and one group that's double the size of the other ends up having fewer reports of people feeling ####ty, that seems important.

Again, i'm not shutting you down...i'm presenting this view to see where the weakness is and to get further feedback.

All true, trials are just not statistically designed that way!  AEs are drug related not necessary disease related - though I agree there is some common sense correlation. 
 

AEs being looked at are if the drug causes harm to a patient. It doesn’t mean if a COVID disease related symptom gets worse (decreases O2 sats or something like that) compared to placebo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pmedina said:

All true, trials are just not statistically designed that way!  AEs are drug related not necessary disease related - though I agree there is some common sense correlation. 
 

AEs being looked at are if the drug causes harm to a patient. It doesn’t mean if a COVID disease related symptom gets worse (decreases O2 sats or something like that) compared to placebo. 

This makes sense.  That's likely why no p value was released, because there's no level of significance for this evaluation.

However, I think if you were to see 90% SAE's for say, shortness of breath in a placebo group, and 10% shortness of breath in a population twice that size given a drug, you could form some conclusions about whether the drug helps prevent that symptom.  And I would think there would be some level at which those differences are statistically significant, based on the specifics of the SAE's being compared between the groups.

But simply comparing generic SAE's from one group to another doesn't provide sufficient information to get any level of confidence (literal), however it can be highly suggestive if the total number of SAE's appears to be 'significantly' less in the drug group than the placebo group.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, DEADHEAD said:

I'll ask again. He's not the only dude in the room. Are they all buffoons? I don't think so. I think Kelly is a pretty sharp guy. Is he in constant damage control?

If I'm in management there, I observe that whenever NP does his shill-show, the stock price goes down. If I get fired, fine, then accelerate my options and I'll cash out and adi-effing-os. 

This dude single-handedly has cost us millions and millions of dollars in market cap.

SENSATIZE

Those guys are all scientists I thought. I figure they’re being sciency and figure they don’t know more about PR than them the CEO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@pmedina @Polish Hammer @Whyatt

 

1) is it normal for safety data to come out in advance of efficacy data like this?

2) if YES: how long typically until efficacy follows?

3) If NO, what are plausible reasons why they would crunch/release data in this order in this case? 
 

Thanks! 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I think we're all in agreement here.  Even if the SAE study is meant to only be used for measuring safety, just by logical deduction it can give us some clue to potential efficacy.

If 2000 terminal brain cancer patients are split in half for a test of a drug vs. a placebo and all 1000 of the patients getting the placebo have an SAE (ie death) and 0 of the patients getting the drug have an SAE we can pretty logically deduce that the drug is majorly effective, even though technically that is not what that study was designed to tell us.

Obviously those are hyperbolic numbers compared to what we're talking about here but the underlying point remains the same, it is at least worth looking at the numbers we have to determine if there is a statistically significant difference of 5/56 vs. 8/29 or whatever the numbers are as a way to potentially make a guess on efficacy results prior to the real ones being released.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [icon] said:

@pmedina @Polish Hammer @Whyatt

 

1) is it normal for safety data to come out in advance of efficacy data like this?

2) if YES: how long typically until efficacy follows?

3) If NO, what are plausible reasons why they would crunch/release data in this order in this case? 
 

Thanks! 
 

I wasn't asked, but anyone with basic math skills and access to the SAE data could've released these results within a day.  That's almost certainly why they were released first.  I can't comment on what's normal, but in this case they likely wanted something out and this was easy to compile.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I mean it seems pretty obvious we are talking about one of two scenarios here.

1) "Oh crap NP said we'd have something out on Tuesday and it's not ready yet, but the safety data is easy to do so let's just do that real quick to give them something to chew on".

Or

2) "Oh crap the efficacy data is horrible this is going to suck.  But the safety data is good so let's release that first to ease people in".

Let's go #1.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, [icon] said:

@pmedina @Polish Hammer @Whyatt

 

1) is it normal for safety data to come out in advance of efficacy data like this?

2) if YES: how long typically until efficacy follows?

3) If NO, what are plausible reasons why they would crunch/release data in this order in this case? 
 

Thanks! 
 

The primary objective of a phase II trial is efficacy. You typically wouldn’t release secondary objectives first because the trial was designed to answer the primary objective (efficacy)

As for the time, not sure with an ID treatment, in cancer efficacy can take months to evaluate. Based on what I know, in a disease like COVID this should be MUCH quicker since the efficacy endpoint (better from COVID or not) occurs much quicker. 
 

sorry, ID = infectious disease 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

All night these stock nerds were over there like omgomgomgomg we’re gonna wake up rich!  And I had no idea what they were talking about.  And then they started pretending they all had PhD’s in biotech or some related discipline. Meanwhile I’m still nowhere near rich.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, pmedina said:

All true, trials are just not statistically designed that way!  AEs are drug related not necessary disease related - though I agree there is some common sense correlation. 
 

AEs being looked at are if the drug causes harm to a patient. It doesn’t mean if a COVID disease related symptom gets worse (decreases O2 sats or something like that) compared to placebo. 

So how does the placebo cause harm?  And it seems that Cytodyn is saying that none of their SAE's are drug related.

I think that SAE's are negative events period.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Capella said:

I wonder if they feel any pressure to have it released before the shareholder call tomorrow. 

The fact that NP went on a paid spot today basically whining shows that at least he is feeling pressure.

I think the problem is that the skills that got him and the company this far, are not the skills required to take it to the next level.  Either he has to adjust and find another speed that's less reactive to daily sentiment and step up his PR game, or he'll be golden parachuted out to make way for someone who can.  No ill will go NP...seems like a great guy.  I've been in jobs where what got me to one level wasn't necessarily working for me once I got there and in some cases it didn't work out, and in others I found a new speed that worked better for me and the position.  NP needs to adjust if he's able.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So it looks like several will get their wish— uplist to Nasdaq before getting significant news.  My take is that a skip or Phase 3 was a Hail Mary, so here we are with a likely move to Phase 3 with expanded samples that provides more confidence that the results do not occur by chance.  Increases the risk of another company beating them to the punch, but those same companies are going to have to jump through the same hoops.  Thinking this goes on a couple more months but the science seems sound.  Still multiple indications in play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chaz McNulty said:

So how does the placebo cause harm?  And it seems that Cytodyn is saying that none of their SAE's are drug related.

I think that SAE's are negative events period.  

Read the JAMA article. Placebos have a long history of causing adverse effects. 
 

Agree on the second point. SAEs are typically negative!  Though I could link to some super nerdy stuff with immunotherapy treatments that suggest higher AEs actually suggest the drug is working in diseases such as melanoma.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

So how does the placebo cause harm?  And it seems that Cytodyn is saying that none of their SAE's are drug related.

I think that SAE's are negative events period.  

They are...but they're negative events baselined by the prevalence of negative events in the placebo category.  The discussion above made that dawn on me.

The example was that if placebo had 10% high blood pressure SAE, and the drug group also had 10%, it's unlikely the drug caused it.  If it was 10% placebo, 50% drug group, drug group likely increased likelihood of the high blood pressure SAE.  And if the drug was 0% and placebo 10%, seems reasonable to question whether the drug lowered it or not, but that part of the trial isn't set up to make a judgment on that.  That part comes in the efficacy portion.

Edited by adonis
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pmedina said:

Read the JAMA article. Placebos have a long history of causing adverse effects. 
 

Agree on the second point. SAEs are typically negative!  Though I could link to some super nerdy stuff with immunotherapy treatments that suggest higher AEs actually suggest the drug is working in diseases such as melanoma.  

Would a patient that went onto a breathing machine be considered an SAE?  A death?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...