This is fair assessment. I’m personally happy with my investment...

First 553 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
raisinsareheresy

206 Posts.

62

05/11/21

18:31

Post #: 57356685
Share

Originally posted by BoomCrashOffera: ↑

Great find shyaam. Appreciate the information and analysis. It would be nicer if the results from the small P2a cohort were less dispersed. Three out of the nine patients (33%) fell outside the 95% confidence limits of -1.33 to 3.11.

Just for reference to others interested and to save them diiging up the results, the PUL 2.0 scores in the P2a - 24 week - study were:

Patient # PUL 2.0
01-001 +2
01-002 +2
01-003 0
01-004 +2
01-006 -3
01-008 +7
01-009 0
01-010 0
01-011 -2

I think the positive outcome from the trial was that 7 out of the 9 patients had no deterioration in their strength, and four out of the 9 actually increased, which was unheard of, I think, until this trial.

Anyway, the disparity in results and the small sample make the larger trial a little riskier than I would like (a shoo in would have been nice), given your findings on the likely placebo mean for 6 months of -1.09 (with steroid treatment or without?).

Expand

This is fair assessment. I’m personally happy with my investment risk here as the newly released proteomics sheds light on a well known adjacency pathway (think phosphokinase pi3k regulation in precision oncology etc.) in relation to the growth factors and precursory peptides that ATL1102 seems to regulate. A larger cohort size with a higher dose stratum should yield some interesting results. I do agree that the most exciting take away from the P2A is the maintenance or improvement in test scores amongst the majority of subjects.

ANP Price at posting: 22.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
4 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply