HOE's Refludan, 10,000 patients to showed a reduction in combined deaths/heart attacks(infarcts?)5.6% vs 6.7% standard therapy, p 0.013
for a proven 18% reduction in unstable angina.
A physician will have to treat (rough numbers)93.3 patients who did not need the drug to save 1. If one included the inevitable deaths 5.6 as not able to be help then did not need it either then 99 did not need to be treated to save 1.
If a physician is cautious he/She will probably overdiagnose "unstable angina give him a good margin of 1 to 2. Then he will treat 200 patients to save 1.
Even in a strictly define Xoma's protocol is used for BPI and assuming that 25% deaths vs 15% with Bpi, then a physician will treat 75 out of 100 that did not needed BPI to survive, (less keep other benefits out of the calculations to make it easier for me to calculate), and despite compassionate care and hope the 15 deaths despite treatment will not "need" it since it will not help then anyway. In a strict protocol out of 100 patients, 90 will not need the drug, to benefit the other 10.
But in the ER a physician will have to treat similar entities (virus do not respond, bacteria other than meningococci that look alike, and keeping with the just approved indication) will treat about 3 suspected ones (additional 200) to get to those 10 on time and not miss. This is to treat 30 to benefit ONE!
In the financial aspect this means that the expected 3,000 cases a year will become 30,000 treated patients.
Of course, as Bpi prove itself more patients and more "over need" treatments will happen.
500,000 sepsis a year in the USA means 1.5 million patients to be treated with Bpi (if one uses a fair 3 to 1 ratio).
All this for inviting tonyt to xoma'board , it seems you do not have enough with Robert S. |
