jsblvbjb (our piano player) and b_leagured(fudfighter4) and technkl99 (objective view)
Could you two clowns stop making up blcht,and wait to see what happens.We all know there is questions with the poster,but also with the company.As usuual you are spinning and guessing and have no background to comment. here is one that rings true
You make an interesting point, but looking at Fig 4 it actually seems like something was at best mislabeled. If you look week to week there are earlier weeks with fewer patients than later weeks, suggesting they did not impute missing values and/or allowed subjects who missed a rating to continue on. That would suggest possible inclusion of possible protocol villagers, precisely why a PP analysis is rarely used. In any event, per other posts, what AF missed, including the above, is that if a PP analysis was specified there is no problem. If it was not, there is no dispute from the poster that different populations were used for the primary versus other endpoints, and that could be an issue. Finally, you are mistaken in assuming that the 128 patients in a PP population would have to overlap with the 128 patients in the mITT populations.
Zorg, it won't help you and your henchman, Fraudstein's, cause to precipitate a big drop in price by feverishly thumbing away. You could make it a little more believable by not doing it all at once right after a post appears.
As for technkl99's post, nothing was mislabelled in Fig. 4. 128 patients finished the Arikace protocol and 134 patients finished the TOBI protocol. In between, some patients were not available for data collection. These things happen: a death in the family, an illness not related to treatment, ad infinitum. No villager or outliers were included, the protocol population is the protocol population. The per protocol population analysis was pre-specified as per the study design stated on the poster in Figure 2. I assumed no specific overlap in populations, but if it is not perfect, it is near 99%. It seems you and Fraudstein are the only ones making up "blcht" , but that is your specialty. Oh, and I don't know what benefit you get from calling me fud, but it doesn't matter, we both know you're FOS.
A few points. First, if what you say is true then the PP population becomes somewhat arbitrary - to whit, only if you miss the last rating would you be excluded, not if you miss interim ratings.
Second - the issue is not what was on the poster, and you are of course correct that the PP population was defined. At issue is whether this population was specified pre-hoc as the population to be analyzed for the primary and no other endpoint.
Third - AF missed a more important finding, somewhat careless, and that is AEs overall and dropouts in particular seem more prevalent with Arikace. That could suggest a bias for Arikace in a PP vs mITT population.
All of this is speculation, and the company could make everyone's life a lot better if they simply produce the mITT data for the primary. And regardless, FDA is likely to look at these analyses anyway. All IMHO.
You have a handle on the trial results because of your DD and ability to decipher the facts when they're presented. The idiotic suppositions of both AF and terry are laughable. You are a welcome throwback to the days when the posters here presented useful info and all did their DD instead of the constant BS and insults of the current crop of morons.