Member Info for Brysoa

For me, a bigger mystery (I think I know where pmjh is hiding and have no interest in what happened to Eva) is the whereabouts of WedME whose writings here were so influential some 15 months or more ago; suddenly disappeared without trace, never to be heard of or from again!

The other key message from this interesting paper relates to the timescales for Phase 2 and Phase 3 studies. Mean of 7-8 years overall for infectious disease and respiratory drugs. SNG’s performance over the past 20 months or so not too shabby.

Ndn71 …. That’s a great summary! Why didn’t 8 say that?

Matterhorn

“How do you get [from a Z statistic of 1,4] to 0.92?” By looking up a table that does the translation. A bit like logarithmic tables for those who suffered A Level or Higher Grade maths.

The paragraph you quote relates to the need to achieve 95% (0.95) probability that one of the primary endpoints achieved is in fact a true finding. This 95% probability has a corresponding Z value somewhat higher than 1.4. My point was that the additional of 300 or so subjects in the final analysis has the effect of increasing the Z statistic and probability value in its own right over that achieved in the interim analysis.

In other words, the interim analysis used a less challenging level of statistical significance than will have been used for the final analysis in the knowledge that the higher numbers in the full data set will, in its own right, strengthen the “power” of the analysis.

Hope this helps. It’s not the easiest thing to try and explain!

The futility test applied was whether the Z score for each of the 2 primary outcome measures was or was not less than 1.4.

This can be interpreted as signifying that, on the basis of the analysis of these 2 outcome measures at the 300 subject stage the was an approximate 0.92 or better probability that observed reductions in time to recovery and time to discharge we’re real and not the product of random chance.

One of the variables driving the formula by which the Z statistic is calculated is the square root of the number of observations, in this case subjects, in the study. Increasing the number of observations increases the Z value, even if the distribution of the observations remains constant. Thus, the power (ability to demonstrate the outcome findings are real and not the product of random chance) of the study increases with sample size.

A Z statistic of not less than 1.4 for each of the two primary outcome measures at the halfway stage is a very strong indicator of likely successful final outcomes of the study.

Try substituting the lay term “-times” for the scientific term “-fold”. So a 10-fold reduction becomes a 10- times reduction, and so on.

This Sunday Telegraph article invites comments and I note that a couple make reference to Synairgen. Perhaps others who are subscribers should weigh-in with comments.

Yes, the impact of interferons in general on Delta has been published, in a pre-print at least, so we can regard that as “ under the belt” as far as SNG001 is concerned. It would be good to see a similar study with omicron and I am sure some researchers somewhere, maybe Synairgen, maybe this group, are working on this right now.

If anything, a result like this from a third party is more valuable than a result published by SNG - “External validation”

So, oh Danny boy, you think that Omicron will be the last variant or that subsequent variants will be less virulent than Delta, etc?

From upandawaybby yesterday morning,
“ There isn’t resistance at 200 we are currently at 206 as I type.
Resistance is 207.4 then 215.97”.

Last patient(s) will have their 35 day assessment by/on 14 December. Right now, all of the analysis protocols will be sitting ready to run. 95+% of patient data will have been entered into data base.

In the light of current developments, I think that a preliminary top-line readout during the 11 remaining work- days between 14 and 31 December is not only desirable but feasible. Particularly so if the results are clear-cut, as many of us expect them to be.

The way these conferences and panel discussions are publicised usually involves a request to speakers to submit a mini cv AND A MUG-SHOT. RM’s photo here, taken together with the yellow plastic water bottle photo on the blurb for the 6 October event lead me wonder what kind of non-verbal message hr is trying to put across. Pretty up-beat, verging on the ebullient, I would suggest!

Off topic, Woody, please take her off our hands!

So, on 6 October, RM could talk about a 2021 readout. That was after the summer slowdown in cases and recruitment to SG 018. I think we must be a little bit off that pace now as the best they can do IMO is 8 weeks from LPD to high level results. This would take us to 4 January, even if we got a LPD tomorrow. And that’s assuming that Christmas is cancelled for Synairgen and their number cruncher contractors. But unless there has been a further dip in recruitment in the last 4 weeks we must be very close to LPD with the prospect of a high level readout early in January.

“jolly hocky sticks and cream teas etc” …Fruits, I laughed out loud! But I agree with everything you say. This was just about the most insightful discussion I think I have heard on SARS Cov 2 and it was a privilege to hear these top scientists voicing so many of the views that have been expressed here long since - vaccine obsession, mega-trials on rubbish prospects hoovering up subjects and slowing real possibilities, political shenanigans, etc

I think that the bit of the process that will take least time is the data “crunching”. The crunching machine will be well in place by now in the sense that the data bae, spreadsheets and templates will have been constructed long since and, in the case of the DB, will have been populated with data from the field on an ongoing basis. This will have allowed the interim analysis after 300 patients.

Once the final verified data is uploaded, someone will press the “return” key and the “crunching” will commence and, to exaggerate a little be done in a heartbeat.

The time consuming bits will be the prior data cleaning and the checking, review and setting up of secondary level analyses, dependent on the primary analysis.

The turnaround time for SG016 was 7 weeks from last patient recruited to announcement of high level results in the RNS of 20 July last year. Add a week for the 35 day duration of the study (not counting the 90 day visit) and we could expect an announcement 8 weeks after last patient recruited.- festive season permitting

Sudden profusion of really small buys including multiple purchases of 23 shares. What is that all about?

Apologies. I see the link was posted very recontly!

Sorry to be dense but does anyone have a link to the SG018 protocol?

Scepticism is all well and good in self-actualising people who feel well going about their day to day activities. But, when the realities of infection and of clinical deterioration kick in, any notion of immortality evaporates pretty quickly and the wish for an effective therapeutic to alleviate breathlessness and other manifestations of respiratory distress kicks in pdq. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in action.