RE:RE:RE:Similar studyThanks Zane777. Based on the trial, the effectiveness of the PoNS is extraordinary and indisputable when compared to the baseline i.e. plateaued physical therapy. But, considering the similarities of the two devices, why was there no sham for the TDU but an "intended sham" for the PoNS that has caused a great deal of confusion and concern?
Zane777 wrote:
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/DEN130039.pdf
Page 10 shows how they evaluated effectiveness. There was no sham device.
One could draw parallels in that all participants were completely blind to begin with and patients in the Helius study all having plateaued with physical therapy prior to the trial.
And yes, they received FDA (which I'm sure you knew.)
Safety in de novo applications appears to be paramount. Meeting un-met need, begin safe, and showing positive results through their many studies will all help greatly with the Helius FDA application.