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 : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aknahow who wrote (9272)	3/19/1999 11:50:00 AM
From: Arthur Radley	Respond to of 17367

Waiting for something to happen with XOMA is like watching paint dry. To give myself a diversion, I've been thinking about issues that will have an impact on all of us in the future. IMO the next great shortage that we will face will not be the oil supply but something that is critical to all living things......WATER. With this in mind, I've started a new thread that I would like all the keen minds here on XOMA to give me input. I welcome anyone that has a different spin on this issue and it implications to life here on Earth. Subject 26703

To: aknahow who wrote (9272)	3/19/1999 1:10:00 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Interesting post by SLGonzalez. 5432 of 5432 Why Predicted Risk of Mortality model may be in use in PIII Meningo, which is why total mortality is key to the test of statistical significance in Xoma's relatively small N study. However, I am not in any way questioning looking at total mortality or its' absence in the both arms of trial. My question has been, and remains why include mortality in the treatment arm in the level required to end the trial? If mortality in the treatment arm had not been counted towards the total would the total required have remained the same, or been lower? If the total would have remained the same, it is obvious it made sense for XOMA's benefit to include them.

To: aknahow who wrote (9272)	3/19/1999 9:15:00 PM
From: Bluegreen	Respond to of 17367

George, notice where just last month this is in Ann Surg. and notice the last part about microcirculation and conclusion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ann Surg 1999 Feb;229(2):262-71 Protective effect of bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein (rBPI21) in baboon sepsis is related to its antibacterial, not antiendotoxin, properties. Schlag G, Redl H, Davies J, Scannon P Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, Vienna, Austria. OBJECTIVE AND SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The recombinant fragment of bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein, rBPI21, has potent bactericidal activity against gram-negative bacteria as well as antiendotoxin (lipopolysaccharide [LPS]) action. On the basis of these activities, the authors sought to discover whether rBPI21 would be protective in baboons with live Escherichia coli-induced sepsis and whether the potential protective effects of rBPI21 (together with antibiotics) would be more closely related to its antibacterial or LPS-neutralizing effects. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled subchronic laboratory study, the efficacy of rBPI21 or placebo was studied over 72 hours in chronically instrumented male baboons infused with live E. coli under antibiotic therapy. RESULTS: Intravenous rBPI21 attenuated sepsis-related organ failure and increased survival significantly. Bacteremia was significantly reduced in the rBPI21 group at 2 hours after the start of the E. coli infusion, whereas circulating LPS was less affected. The in vivo formation of tumor necrosis factor was significantly suppressed by the rBPI21 treatment regimen. >>>>>Microcirculation and organ function were improved. CONCLUSIONS: In baboon live E. coli sepsis, the salutary effect of rBPI21 results from a more prevalent antibacterial than antiendotoxin activity.<<<<<<<<<