SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : Immunomedics (IMMU) - moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: kdd99910/21/2009 1:17:22 AM
  Read Replies (2) of 63324
 
I listened to the HGSI oct 14 question/answer.

The last analyst, "stephen howell, global" I think, brought up the "striking difference" in types of end points between the benlysta and ucb studies. He asked (at 2:18:03 in the replay, if you want to listen for a couple of minutes) Dr. Petrie why she preferred not to use the bilag endpoints like UCB. She hemmed and hawed, then the guy took over (didn't catch his name cuz I didn't start at the beginning of the session), and he said bilag is complex and requires lots of training of the researchers. He also said that they needed a big enuf sample of the various organ systems for each of the bilag ratings, apparently claims they didn't have enough enrollment to do this. The analyst asked "in your experience do you see placebo effects more pronounced in some organ domains", his answer was there is "some quirkiness in bilag...".

They then shut down the meeting. I sense some discomfort in both speakers with that line of questioning. I mean, how do you say "we set it up in the only possible way that we could succeed" without sounding like a flake? You don't.

Anybody know who "global" is or who stephen howell is? He was the only one I heard who mentioned the UCB data. I thought that was significant.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext