At-least Blarca have actually done a delayed/start analysis, with Lecanumab they declined to do one (probably because it looked like the delayed start group was catching the early start - looks close to not being stat sig by end) - https://www.eisai.com/news/2024/news202456.html
It's actually even more bad that Lecabumab delayed group seem to be catching up when you consider their trial was 18 months vs Blarca 48 weeks. If you assume both drugs work it should have been harder for Lecanumab delayed start group to catch up with early start as their early start group had 7 months longer on the drug.
Lecanumab do show a positive comparison against ADNI in terms of absolute numbers. If RETT excellence had done a comparison against ADNI only it would also look very successful as it (and placebo) performed much better than RETT patients are normally expected to. However, it is the case that cross comparisons are not so robust as comparisons against placebo.
It's true we don't see the charts yet. In terms of ADAS COG, at week 48 difference is 2.027, at week 144 the difference is 2.7 and week 192 is 3.83. We don't know the lines yet but considering in the 48 week trial the most the lines diverged in any one 12 week period from each other was prob around 1.5 points it certantly seem unlikely the lines ever get close between weeks 144 and 192 going by the deltas. For what it's worth in the AP/PD abtract conclusion Grimmer is due to present it does also have the sentence - "Delayed start group does not catch up to early start group, reflecting importance of early treatment initiation." - though this likely refers to the overall stats rather than the lines.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
