Ann: Mesoblast Update on COVID-19 ARDS Trial, page-146

They powered it for a 43% reduction which means they enrolled enough patients that a 43% reduction would show a significant result. There must have been some result because we got a continuation at the 45% but not enough that at the end of trial we would see significance, so the Bayesian analysis recommended a stop at the 60% because of no chance of reaching trial endpoint. Once we see the data we will know for sure, but unfortunately it looks like it could be bad trial design - not accounting for dropping mortality rates (which we have been concerned about here for a while) or no treatment effect.

Personally I am VERY shocked we are halting for futility rather than not meeting significance at trial's end, and also that they powered the trial for a 43% reduction in mortality, that is very ambitious! Once again it could be one of these results where there is benefit but not clinically proven benefit, and so we are left wondering.

A disappointing result for holders today.