Bunch of losers?, page-25

Sadly a trial that hasn't met it's end points is often considered a "failure", but there is no absolute textbook definition of a "failed" trial. But I know where you are coming from: "Failure" mostly feels like a sleight (I'm not suprised...).

CHF - did not met primary endpoints. But many items were identified that redeem the trial to be anything but a failure

“MPC therapy could change the future of cardiovascular care for patients with heart failure due toinflammation,” according to Dr. Joseph G. Rogers, CEO and President of The Texas Heart Institute andadvanced heart failure specialist.



Additional trials warranted sure, but you don't casually get these p values by accident or by "patching" or whatever that other negatively connotative word was (scalping? drudging?...). The last dot point refers to the primary end point which was not met.

CLBP - pre-specified exploratory efficacy outcome showed great improvement in conjunction with HA (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71553-2)



and would refer to the following: FDA’S OTAT IN AGREEMENT WITH 12-MONTH REDUCTION IN PAIN AS PRIMARY END POINT FOR CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN PROGRAM

https://investorsmedia.mesoblast.com/static-files/4253b5ed-c912-4856-a0c9-099e2b176eb4

which also notes "withfunctional improvement and reduction in opioid use as secondary endpoints."



So that looks pretty promising for the next trial - a way forward discovered in this instance is a failure? I'm not so sure.

ARDS - halted for futility early. I think we can agree this is probably a "failure" on a few legs of what one would consider a failure. useful data generated however is on the shelf while waiting for the potency assay piece on the back of sr agvhd data with the FDA. A good spring board for all cause ARDS and another trial.