Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Just Published, the Cethrin results

  1. #11
    Senior Member evansmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    107
    Blog Entries
    1
    Wow, this is very interesting...

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by t8burst View Post
    A couple questions... that seems low and also what percentage converted in the control group?
    I will download and post the paper in the SCI (Clinical) Research forum this weekend so that members can have access.

    Wise.

  3. #13
    Any move in the right direction is great news, thanks Dr. Young.

  4. #14

  5. #15
    Senior Member rdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Someplace between Nowhere and Goodbye
    Posts
    12,961
    "While we recognise that, given the lack of randomisation and a placebo control arm in our phase 1/2a trial, no conclusions can be made regarding efficacy, it is relevant to place the extent of neurological recovery seen in our patient cohort into context," explained Fehlings. For 2-grade or better improvement to ASIA C, D, or E, their rate of 19% at six months was 1.5 to 3-fold higher than seen in previous studies.

    "So at the end of the day, what we can say is that it's safe, it's feasible, and the results look promising," Fehlings concluded. "The next step will be to do a prospective randomised study, and the plans for that are now in the works. We hope to initiate that within the next few months."
    From DupeNet's link: http://www.cxvascular.com/sn-archive...-cord-injuries

    Quote Originally Posted by t8burst View Post
    A couple questions... that seems low and also what percentage converted in the control group?
    Please donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org.
    Copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature.

    Thanks!

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    356
    What I can't see here is what % of the Cervical patients recovered 2 or more ASIA levels vs. Thoracic.

    I know i'm a c-5 and recovered from A to B or C spontaneously - just sitting on my rear. So I'm not really impressed with this study if the majority that improved 2 or more ASIA levels were Cervical injuries.

    And I hope the 150% to 300% improvement vs. previous studies is "normalized" to take into account the same general mix of T vs. C injuries. just sayin - you can twist statistics easily.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Imight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    6,535
    Quote Originally Posted by ip View Post
    What I can't see here is what % of the Cervical patients recovered 2 or more ASIA levels vs. Thoracic.

    I know i'm a c-5 and recovered from A to B or C spontaneously - just sitting on my rear. So I'm not really impressed with this study if the majority that improved 2 or more ASIA levels were Cervical injuries.

    And I hope the 150% to 300% improvement vs. previous studies is "normalized" to take into account the same general mix of T vs. C injuries. just sayin - you can twist statistics easily.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what the control group is for, isn't it?

    I'm wondering how a combination of cethrin and hypothermic treatment would result.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    356
    Supposedly there's no control group:

    "given the lack of randomisation and a placebo control arm"

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    359
    There were no controls.
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Many completes regain some function simply because they were misdiagnosed, so without controls this drug trial strikes me as utter BS.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetracyclone View Post
    There were no controls.
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Many completes regain some function simply because they were misdiagnosed, so without controls this drug trial strikes me as utter BS.
    From my reading of the article this study was meant to assess the safety of the drug and now that it has been established that it can be administered with no apparent bad side effects they will now do a proper randomized study to assess its efficacy.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-14-2008, 05:00 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-10-2008, 09:00 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-2005, 12:53 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-10-2005, 11:23 AM
  5. GM1 Trial Results Published - Geisler
    By Wise Young in forum Cure
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2001, 06:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •