Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Calmare Therapeutics Incorporated Message Board

  • lonzooscar lonzooscar May 16, 2013 11:09 AM Flag

    The ASCO abstract that...

    ...everyone seems to be waiting for has appeared!

    Unfortunately, yahoo won't allow hot links so you'll have to search for "abstract #9635" at ASCO 2013.

    I'll summarize it briefly. Dr. Campbell compared to groups of seven patients each.

    One group got MC5A (calmare) treatment while the other received a "nontherapeutic" sham treatment.

    Result: the calmare produced no significant change in pain symptoms. By the same token, the nontherapeutic sham also produced no significant change in pain symptoms.

    In other words, you can treat someone with a calmare and expect no better result than had you treated them with a nontherapeutic sham.

    Hardly seems worth paying $2500 for now, does it?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • If anyone is at ASCO today and obtains any information about Dr. Campbell's poster presentation and is willing to share it, it would be appreciated.

    • Misinformation. This was not the pain results. This news which I note is not a presentation at ASCO, is only available on line. It validates that the U of WI's designed sham device can't be differentiated from the actual Calmare.

      Now, the trial will go forward, knowing that the sham device isn't producing a false positive.

      This data was essential to preclude potential criticism of the results of a larger trial.

      To put it in simpler terms, in deference to those without any medical training, we know know that the sham is meaningful and that the results therefrom can't be challenged.

      The summary of the abstract says, " Conclusions: In a small pilot study, MC5A was not significantly different from sham therapy for the primary outcome. The sham is feasible and provides a mechanism for future controlled studies with MC5A. Secondary endpoints, e.g. QST are forthcoming."

      • 3 Replies to favela808
      • It isn't Sham it is scam.

        Sentiment: Strong Sell

      • I looked at the abstract. If I extrapolated the daily changes to the total changes correctly, the sham patients improved by 25% and the treatment group by an average of 32%. With such a small number (7), this difference, while favorable to Calmare, isn't statistically significant. So, I am more in line with what Favela said, that the study value is in discussing the ability to do a sham trial. The study as listed in clintrials talked about 40 patients (clin trials website) so its not surprising the results don't show a statistical difference. With such small numbers, I wouldn't make much of the actual values or the differences between the group.

        Seems like Dr. Campbell is offering a great service to the non-invasive pain management dialogue.

      • The phrase grasping at straws comes to mind.

        The abstract clearly says, "The primary endpoint was change in pain."

        It compared the mc5a (calmare) to a sham "nontherapeutic" device.

        It then presents two tables which shows the "change in numerical rating scale" for pain for each therapy.

        Data was collected for before, after, and 3 months after therapy.

        Then it says "there was no differences between arms."

        Conclusions: the calmare had essentially ZERO effect on symptoms and this was the SAME effect as that produced by the "nontherapeutic" sham.

        In other words, the calmare not only had no effect, it couldn't even show a difference from a machine that simply produced a "nontherapeutic" buzz.

 
CTTC
0.3424Jun 30 3:24 PMEDT