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: Cacaito who wrote (10326)	6/3/1999 12:13:00 PM
From: Robert K.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Cacaito, I think I was the one who added the 62 to the 395. The context WAS that if 62 died before being allowed in, then by adding the 63 to the 34 one get almost 100 died out of 450 est. That makes a 2/out of 7 death rate which seems in line with historicals. If one imagined (imagined) a zero in the bpi group then the death rate might be 34 plus 34 plus 62 for about 130 of 450. That approximated 33% or so. Does the 62 really get added to the 395>NO WAY. But it gives a historical context to published rates. Does 34 out of 395 mean anything? A 8% death rate seems AWEFULLY low in a glasow 8 plus population IMO . And that INCLUDES placebos. All my uninformed opinion. Standard K.

To: Cacaito who wrote (10326)	6/3/1999 2:11:00 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Cacaito, the 62 was never and cannot be added to the trial numbers for any calculation for efficacy. There has been a debate on what is the mortality for meningococcemia. Right or wrong it would seem one can use or better speculate on what the mortality rate for meningococcal sepsis is when one thinks about the 62. Remember for a long time you reminded us all that the disease is fast acting and deadly and that the mortality rate for sever meningococcemia was probably still around 30%. Murphy, did add the 62 to the 395 and to the 34, to calculate an estimated mortality rate. So did Robert, but Robert understands the problems with doing this. I added the 62 just to 1/2 of 395. Understand the arms may not split by exactly 50/50. The rational was these 62 were in hospitals, getting SOC and they died. I reject that there were many if any at grade 8 or higher in the hospitals getting SOC that otherwise would have qualified for the trial but who refused to enter the trial and lived anyway. The 4 were not part of the 62. They did enter the trial and did receive either the placebo or BPI but died almost immediately. I explained why Castello made a point about this. No one knew at that time in which arm they fell. I do not believe the XOMA web site says that 80% were in the 8-11 grad and 20% were in the higher Glasgow group. I used that breakdown based on other articles I have read. No longer remember which ones but it seemed more conservative. Don't see any problem on the 62 not being enrolled. XOMA was trying to get them enrolled but they died before they could be. Seems difficult to believe mortality could be only 8% for placebo group when we know that for all 395 the mortality rate was only 8% Since you don't relate your mortality estimates to treated or placebo arms I am not sure what you think the mortality rate is.