"The poster you're probably referring to is correct about that. Keep in mind, the company also expected the results by now. Clearly it's taking longer than expected and hence the "overdue". The mistake is assuming that overdue results means they're bad. It just means they're taking longer than expected. Trials can be unpredictable. The recruiting was also slower than expected.
I was that poster, and the drug referred to was Ixekizumab (a.k.a Taltz, Eli Lilly's ph2 (don't think I mentioned company or drug by name)) which has been approved for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis(and also psoritic arthritis(in Europe at least, not sure of U.S) after completing a phase 3 following the ph 2.
Anyhow what I also did not mention was that trial, Lilly's ph 2 ixekizumab (Taltz) also had 32 (2 po, 30 so) total outcome measures vs ipix's 11 (2 po, 9 so). Also not noted was 10 of Lilly's outcome measure endpoints in that trial had durations of at least 240 weeks(~4yr,1 month), with one of those 10 having an outcome measure duration of 344 weeks(6.6 years).
Meanwhile, I stopped searching after PP's poignant post about (I'm paraphrasing) "the never ending search, and how many reviews he/she has done". But, prior to PP's post, I found one ph 2 study that announced results 42 days after completion(Metriopharma, drug MP1032) which had total endpoints of 9 with an estimated 44 patients(vs actual in all other assessments), and a Valeant ph3 study IDP-118 where results were announced 192 days after completion(217 patient study, 1 primary endpoint(po), zero secondary endpoints(so).
Thank you PP for sharing your experience.
The many ways of analyzing.
