"They should only report the period of time where all the outcome from patients are known and report the actual mortality rate."
"the listed mortality rate of 25.7% is far too optimistic. It is simply the current status, not the final outcome."
Obviously, all reporting, research is as at a point in time. How long would you have us wait for the results you want, 6 months, 12 months, longer?
Our trial has a 30 Day Time Frame on the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. So the research is cogent.
When I happen to see (and these days that's pure chance) people quote the 88% mortality rate referred to in the MSB 24.04.20 announcement, I take the chance to correct it, back to circa 30%. Don't shoot the messenger.
Does anyone have better research? Anyone? Anyone?
What I thought people might pick up on in the research were figures for Still In ICU - eg UK 81.9%, and note as others like @vasilios did before the relevance of such an astounding stat for our secondary endpoints, in particular, days alive off mechanical support ie out of the ICU.
I remain hopeful for a statistically significant result on mortality, but we would need to be approaching 90-100% survival. Maybe.
I am very hopeful for our secondary endpoints, and whilst for those the trial has a 60 Day Time Frame, don't be surprised if our trial is stopped for nice results on mortality but overwhelming efficacy on secondary endpoints sooner than that.
GLTAH!
MSB Price at posting:
$3.35 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)