Ann: Cynata Expands trial in COVID-19 & Respiratory Failure, page-222

I don't believe you ever commented on whether you accept my criticism that failing to account for prone positioning in ARDS as part of the standard of care specification was a design flaw or not. I would be interested in what you think.

In a prior post #63531551, I noted that in the market release Ross admitted “vastly improved patient management practices in our target population [for the MEND Trial]" impacted patient recruitment. Patient ventilation in the prone position may be one of the techniques that were implemented which weren't initially being used, resulting in a lower number of patients and therefore an improved standard of care.

Prone positioning isn't without its risks and limitations, however. This journal summarises some of the key issues: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2769872

Given it requires "a team of trained clinicians, including respiratory therapists, nurses, and a physician" to safely move a single patient into the prone position, and we know there is a critical shortage of hospital workers, what is the probability that the majority of patients eligible for this treatment would be given it? I would say it is low.

Ultimately, I think it is reasonable to criticise the standard of care outlined in the MEND trial, as it probably underestimated the improvements that would occur across the duration of the trial. It is too difficult to say this relates mostly from failing to account for prone positioning of patients, however.