Hi @csrwin, this is a study well worth reading IMO. The authors...

Hi @csrwin,

this is a study well worth reading IMO.

The authors acknowledge from the outset that it is a retrospective, descriptive single-center study with the limitations inherent in the absence of clinical controls. On the other hand, these were salvage patients & they provide mortality/ morbidity data & identify deaths unflinchingly where they occurred. This is real-world evidence at its most meaningful, IMO.

Contrast this approach with the devious, calculated & ultimately cynical approach taken by Novartis in the REACH-4 study.

I found this unarguable point to be the single most positive thing to take away from this study:



I don't believe there is ultimately a way for biostatisticians to fail to approve a therapy - even if they don't understand a shred of it - which is safe, & in which overall survival (OS) is higher in responders than in non-responders.

These clinican doctors were clearly significantly impressed by the fact that none of the responders to MSCs died over a median follow-up period of 21 months from first MSCs infusion OS was 90% at 3 months (CI: 79–100), 86%at 6 months (CI:74–100) and 79% at twelve months (CI:65–95)post MSCs infusion.

Cheers,
GLTA(LT)H