To: opalapril who wrote (8367 ) 1/19/1999 11:23:00 AM From: aknahow Respond to of 17367
opala, yes I do wish XOMA had bluntly and directly said as the P III trial started that they had ben told that in the interest of getting the quickest fix on the efficacy of Neuprex they would need to have at least X deaths to analyze statistically. But take your statements one by one, given that XOMA was asked not to discuss deaths as they occurred. "We plan..." I am sure they did plan to finish in two years. But death rate was lower so they could not. "The original P III design... called for a two year trial ...to accrue as many patients as we can in two years." This is still true but what is left unsaid was the mortality factor. So here we are at just a tad over the two year period and the trial appears to be in its final stages. The desired time target has been overshot by a matter of weeks. I don't find this to be a big deal, nor apparently does the market. IMO the additional information was good news as it allowed one to understand why the trial was continuing without assuming that it could only continue for negative reasons. So one can either pick on XOMA for not giving us the details from the start, when we accept the fact they were told not to, or be happy that when necessary a further explanation was given. Before a 100 mile drive with 3 young kids to their grandmothers home, under what might be stressful conditions, one might say hey were going to visit Grandma, on the way you might mention she has been ill. Later you might mention she has been in pain. Later that she is at rest. When you get there you can explain she died. Everything true. I am not saying XOMA did it this way, nor that I would, nor that one should. Just don't agree that we were seriously misled. If the trial goes on till June, I will then agree with you. <g>