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: Bluegreen who wrote (9373)	3/24/1999 10:31:00 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

I don't know. I suppose one can calculate the desired p by using the difference between a specific number of deaths in the treatment arm and the placebo arm. It would not mater how many patients were accrued but only the outcome as measured by mortality. But XOMA never said that from the start. Instead they always referred to total accruals. 130 and then 200. This creates a mind set with focus on the number in the trials working back, using the mortality rate to get to the total number of deaths. All this was silly because the specific number of deaths in each arm had already been established and the final accrual number would end up being whatever it would be. Therefore Cacaito using just mortality levels or deaths in each arm what numbers in each arm produce a p that is significant? We know that 1 death vs 25 deaths was not statistically significant. Would 10 vs 35 be significantly positive?