Growing Confidence on COVID-19 Application, page-72

@LearningEachDay …”Uncover this surprising fact” …..Really ? Perhaps the lack of statistical significance (p value) should steer you away from such conclusions despite the” facts” ? . Please take into account the tiny patient population data set in this subgroup. You may well argue thats the best we have to go on…but that is not how it works and on reflection, I am sure you appreciate this . In my opinion, we need a bigger data set to draw a meaningful conclusion on this aspect of the trial. That being said, the scale of improvement referenced by some prespecified endpoints, combined with the requisite p value, does supports our efficacy in the under 65 patient population and justifies an EUA because of the lack of treatment options.

Lastly may I express my thanks to you for taking the time to decrypt the rather strange presentation of the data …which is of course is supposed to highlight the favourable aspects …To be fair to Mesoblast , this was a painstakingly followed trial protocol and it has every right to trumpet the STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT conclusions . When there are variations which equate to just one or two patients perhaps it would be unwise to make authoritative statements as to the findings. There are many recent examples of underpowered Covid trials resulting in statistical anomalies which do not repeat themselves in larger trial populations.

OP