RE:RE:RE:RE:Treated Patients 13 to 30
DJDawg wrote:
Great conversation everyone. I just wanted to say that the patient tracker is almosr 100% based on the most recent newsletter. I just did the following:
- pluggedin the optimized patients as that is easy.
https://postimg.cc/jLWvsJRp
- then added in phase1b patient trio.
https://postimg.cc/yWGXrY0v
- finally, played with the spreadsheet to make the 33 total patients from the newsletter, make sense given the optimized and the 1b patient trio. In doing this I had to make some guesses. For example, to make the PR and CR numbers make sense at 180 days I assumed that one CR converted to a PR. Then to make it work at 270, one the NR totals only worked if we assumed that the PR patient converted to NR. And so forth. Really kind of like a soduku or wordle puzzle.
https://postimg.cc/XXr9FStF
I would really really love it if someone would duplicate the process from scratch from November newsletter to see if I made a mistake in assumptions. Takes half an hour to do.
As a final comment TLT sometimes posts data in a way that doesn't make sense math-wise so I think they are still error prone on their end. For example, looking at the new corp slide deck, I can't make sense of the math on slide 11, right sided image. The only way that it work is if the 90 day patient total is 18 but the 180,270,360,450 group size is 22 (not 18 which is what TLT says is the total in the newsletter itself). To add to the confusion the right side image says 33 on it.
https://postimg.cc/1nq6kDGB
So some of our challenges may be on the data we are working from.
Cheers.
When reporting data, it would behoove the company imo to separate the "fully" optimized (starting with patient 13) from the rest. The last newsletter did separate the data on optimized patients, however, this less than fully optimized group included those who had received an initial underdosed treatment. Combining data from a rightfully abandoned protocol with the corrected version simply gives an inaccurate representation of our ACT as currently recommended... not to mention providing a very confusing (if not impossible) picture for the lay public/investment community to interpret. Even the 1b results are only a measure of a patient's response after a "single" treatment, & as encouraging as these results are, this data may ultimately not reflect the true durability potential of our "two-dose" ACT. All imo.
Moving forward, I hope data can be reported in a more sensible way, separating the "fully" optimized from the less optimized from the entire patient population. In the end, it is the "fully" optimized group that should get the FDA's full attention. JMO.