Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[falconer66a]

Blarcamesine group falls were not by mere chance.

Falls reported in the Phase 2b/3 trial 7% for for those on blarcamesine are about 30% reduced from 9.9% for those on placebo.

One might say that blarcamesine appears to reduce the incidents of falls by 30% compared to placebo.

In regard to those data points it was claimed that although there was a numeric 30% reduction in falls in the study patients taking blarcamesine, compared to the placebo patients who were taking disguised starch pills, the placebo pills, “the numbers aren’t big enough to know; it could have been mere chance.”

Really? Consider the relative probabilities.

There were 161 patients in the placebo arm of the study, of which 16 (9.9%) were recorded as having fallen.

Over in the experimental arm, the patients taking blarcamesine, there were 301 people on the drug, of which 21 (7.0%) were reported to have fallen.

161 to 301. 1.8x more people taking the drug than those who didn’t. If the reduction in falling in the blarcamesine cohort was merely a chance event, with the larger n, 301, why then wouldn’t the two fall-rates be closely similar? Instead, they varied by 41%, 7.0% in one group and 9.9% in the other. [9.9 is 41% greater than 7.0.]

Putatively it has been claimed that blarcamesine does not reduce fall rates. Falls in both groups are by chance alone. If that's so, the fall rates would need to be similar. However, they are not. 41% different.

Claiming that the reduced fall rate in the blarcamesine group was merely by chance is bogus altogether. None of the metrics match chance occurrences. If blarcamesine fails to reduce the fall rate, and falls are randomly caused by other external factors, the respective fall rates would have been narrowly the same. They were not. Blarcamesine, alone, markedly reduces the chances of falling in people with Alzheimer's disease.