@Ziebes1”…. there is the question of the absolute benefit to the...

@Ziebes1

”…. there is the question of the absolute benefit to the individual patient. A 20% reduction in cardiovascular mortality during the median follow-up of 27 months in PARADIGM-HF sounds impressive. But those deaths are delayed a little rather than prevented. A reliable extrapolation of the Kaplan-Meier curves suggests at most a 6-month median benefit (which, as noted above, is already likely to be an over-estimate of the true benefit of Entresto versus an optimal standard of care using generic drugs).”


https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidgrainger/2015/09/14/is-the-superiority-of-entresto-just-an-illusion/





Now , by contrast , consider the durability of response in the Mesoblast Dream CHF trial against the control group.

“Prevention of NYHA class II patients progressing to CV death rates of NYHA class III patients (p=0.004); in contrast, NYHA class II patients on maximal therapy in the control group progressed to CV death rates of NYHA class III patients after a mean period of 20 months of disease stability”



Now compare this to the gold standard Entresto, considering the concern expressed above in an article by David Grainger from Forbes magazine regarding the Entresto results in Paradigm-HF


In my opinion, Mesoblast is onto a massive winner. The scale of the improvements relative to the control , including those achieved in the full dataset of Grade 2 & 3 patients in some secondary endpoints …makes a mockery of the “cherry picking” accusation . Many ischemic patients in our Grade 2 cohort experienced nodiseaseprogression over the mean trial period. Simply amazing . How Teva managed to cock up its choice of primary endpoint goodness only knows …by reference to most gold standard primary endpoints used in Class 2 CHF trials…Dream CHF was a triumph. To think they stopped recruiting Grade 2 patients by amending the trial protocol halfway through ….after receiving feedback from the interim analysis. What a shame..they misinterpreted the data at that stage. Surely the “experts” will work this out by using metadata from biomarker panels etc., to show this was no false positive . Mind you the Phase 2 results were pretty miraculous too. What are the odds of both trials producing unheard of results . OP