This PR has a table that shows the relapse rates in the “12+12” arms of PROVE-1 and PROVE-2 were 2% and 14%, respectively. A footnote says this:
The relapse rate in the 24-week telaprevir-based treatment arm of PROVE 1 reflects only those patients who achieved RVR and remained undetectable through week 20. For patients in the 24-week telaprevir-based treatment arm of PROVE 2 who achieved RVR and remained undetectable through week 12 the relapse rate was 7%.
The relapse rate in the “12+12” arm of PROVE-2 was reported in two ways: it was 7% for patients who had an RVR/EVR and was 12% for all patients in the arm. On the other hand, the relapse rate in the “12+12” arm of PROVE-1 was reported in only one way: for patients who had an RVR and had undetectable virus at week 20.
Q: Why was the relapse rate in the “12+12”arm reported differently in PROVE-1 than in PROVE-2?
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated in any area of human knowledge!”