RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Maintenance DoseOops, Eoganacht I see I am repeating much of what you said and you used fewer words in doing so. I see you also clarify the 4 as having 1 unoptimized treatment and 1 optimized treatment wheras I used the term fully optimized.
If the "3" received a second treatment why would it not have been the optimized treatment? Does that suggest they still were not aware of the dosage discrepancy? until they got to the 4th eligible patient?
Pandora wrote: Eoganacht wrote: 4 of the 7 who received a second treatment received the optimized treatment.
So 5 of the 12 are out of the trial, 3 received 2 unoptimized treatments and 4 recieved 1 unoptimized treatment and 1 optimized treatment.
News Release Sept. 24, 2020 "Study II has enrolled and treated 12 patients to date. Out of the 7 patients that are eligible to receive the second treatment, 5 have been treated and 2 are pending. 2 out of the last 5 patients treated for the second time have been treated with the optimized Study II treatment, which will also be the case for the 2 patients that are pending their second treatment." Rumpl3StiltSkin wrote: BTW, should we be referring to the second treatment of this Study 2 as a 'Maintenance Dose'? The real question is did the 7 of the 12 that are still part of this, did they receive that second treatment as 'optimized' ??
The wording as noted before could certainly be better formatted. I took a stab at slightly different wording below which makes it easier for me to understand but others may disagree. What it leaves me with is another question.
7 out of 12 were eligible for further treatment. Doesn't mention where the 5 ineligible patients went. Must we "assume" they were removed from the study?
It then goes on to say 5 "have been" treated, 2 are pending (still 7 in total).
But it then says only 2 of the 5 that "have been" treated "for the second time" have been treated with the optimized treatment. So what does that say for the other 3 that were treated for the second time -- why is it that they did not receive "the optimized treatment".
It then goes on to say the final 2 of the 7 will receive the optimized treatment. Still confusing because of the wording re the "3". Does that all mean that only 4 of the 7 - or 4 of the original 12 - actually received the optimized treatment.
Of the original 12, 5 were removed and then 3 more did not receive the optimized treatment although they appear to have received a second treatment. 4 moved on fully optimized?
"Study II has enrolled and treated 12 patients to date. Out of those 12 patients 7 are eligible to receive the second treatment. Out of those 7, 5 have been treated and 2 are pending. 2 of the last 5 patients treated for the second time have been treated with the optimized Study II treatment, which will also be the case for the 2 patients that are pending their second treatment."