Let's take a step back and try to see if this "report" can at all be accurate:
77 patients included in the analysis
If he happened to stumble over exactly the first 77 patients that filled Iclusig prescriptions, then the 77th patient would have gotten his/her drug in calendar-week 5 (3, 10, 18, etc.), maybe in calendar-week 4 (if we include low capture-rate in the assumption).
So the 77th patient went to the pharmacy sometime late January/early February at the very earliest.
Not sure if the drug is available immediately everywhere. I would assume some shipping-time from the "specialty pharmacy". So probably patient received drug 1-3 days later and started his/her regimen.
Doctors are probably asking for frequent follow-up visits in the beginning, let's say every 2 weeks or so.
Since the "report" was published end of March, supposed phone-interviews with doctors must have taken place a few days earlier (I don't assume that all doctors were available over the Easter weekend.) Interviews probably happened - if they happened at all - March 25th - 28th at the latest.
The patients must have had their latest follow-up earlier, maybe up to two weeks earlier. Let's be conservative and say all patients where seen by their doctors on March 20th or later.
This still means that patient No 77 had only 6 weeks on the drug (best case, realistically much less) and - supposedly - already a pretty good chance to have had a stroke, a heart-attack, perforated intestines and/or a ruined liver (non-reversible; the doctor managed to conclude non-reversibility all in 6 weeks or less from start of drug use!)
Pretty remarkable efficiency!!
Is this reasonable? You make up your own mind.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
