Ok, I can see I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt!
1. Yes they completed a phase 2b study, but they did not get RMAT designation "despite only completing a Phase 2b study", which is what you said. As I said in my very first reply, this is a very important point, as having results from several independent studies significantly reduces the chances of the findings being a fluke, and thus helps to build a much more compelling case for the product.
2. You completely failed to mention the primary endpoint, which is clearly the most crucial piece of data from any study, while emphasising "failed" secondary endpoints. You can keep denying that what you wrote created a misleading impression of the outcome of that trial, but I'm really not sure who you're trying to convince.
3. Actually, I'm pretty sure I have provided a balanced view, but if you feel I have left out any important information pertinent to Vericel's RMAT designation, feel free to tell us about it.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
