Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : VVUS: VIVUS INC. (NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frostman who wrote (9253)	6/5/1998 8:37:00 PM
From: DaiS	Respond to of 23519

Frostman, Just a typo from an earlier attempt, should be 23% not 20% at step 2. DaiS Really must go to bed now

To: Frostman who wrote (9253)	6/6/1998 8:36:00 AM
From: DaiS	Respond to of 23519

Frostman, Re success rate in Fulgam study. I checked my equations and they seem OK. So using your table the results are, DOSE #SUBJECTS TESTED #SUCCESS #FAILURE 250 115 9 106 500 106 18 88 1000 10 4 6 The rate adjusted for the smaller sample size at the highest dose is 54% men succeeding when dosed up to 1000ug. The abstract is unambiguous for derivation of the equations, there is only one unique solution (assuming no dropouts), and there are no rounding error problems. So I am quite confident this is what they got. The 54% assumes that the 10 men at step three were not chosen as the most promising failures at 500ug. I don't think this matters because the progression of improvement with increasing dose looks reasonable and as I said before the 54% has large estimation errors. For example if 6 men had succeeded at 1000, the adjusted success rate would have been 69%. The 18.6% continuation quoted by Fulgam is a puzzle 20/115 is 17.39% 21/115 is 18.26% 21 out of 31?? 22/115 is 19.13% If the men continuing included the 4 of the 10 tested at 1000, the adjusted continuation rate for the 115 patients would have been 45%. But we do not know this. I think Vivus is right to home in on just the fact that only 10 men were tested on 1000ug, it is a clear simple way to discredit the study - Leland Wilson talking about simultaneous equations on TV would I think not do much for the share price. I understand a bit now about the way in which scripts in the USA are filled. My estimate of the continuation rate from the script data, FWIW was not more than 10%. The Fulgham study suggests much higher success than this. And I posted yesterday feedback from a local ED clinic here which suggested quite good success. I am sure that there is some important message from the script data but I cannot see it - except that it must start rising soon!! It would be interesting to see regional script data from the USA DaiS