I agree with mike Lock's comment; how is a 1 in 6 (17%) response a good result? That means 83% of patients did NOT see any positive change.

Also how was this 'positive' response measured? In many clinical trials the company that sponsors the study chooses trial endpoints that measure a change in blood test result. However, such an endpoint does nott necessarily indicate a meaningful clinical improvement for a patient. For example, imagine a drug that lowers cholesterol to reduce the rate of heart attack. The trial might show a drop in blood cholesterol, but if patients still have the same rate of heart attacks then the drug is useless. In IST's study it is unclear what was measured and whether it is clinically meaningful.

Finally, what happened in the placebo group (I assume there was one?) Did 17% of them also have a positive result?

As a biomedical investor, this press release smells a bit fishy to me...