bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Would include this in the above message but no idea how to add quotes into messages that I've already posted anymore...not the same as before. I'm surprised they're just looking at antibody neutralizing responses. I thought clinical results were the golden metric still? I mean, it's probably fine (personally it looks to me like the quality titers correlate pretty well with real-world results), but I'm going to guess that if there is any question about the results, we're going to wish we had a larger N. We're now in a vaccinated situation, and events are even more rare.
But I guess you're saying it is phase 1. I guess it's not clear to me why they don't go straight to phase 3. Is there really that much doubt about antibody responses and safety? They really don't take any chances!
So I guess you're saying we'll get the large N later? Or they'll just skip that step instead? I guess I'm on board with that as well. I guess from the press release it's technically an amendment to a phase 2 trial. So hopefully skip phase 1 and phase 3, then start vaccinating.
It's a "new drug" according to the FDA. So it must go through Phase 1, although it can be expedited.
Plus, phases 2 and 3 are EXPENSIVE to run. If the new sequence doesn't have higher levels of neutralizing antibodies, they probably won't pursue Phases 2/3.