Doubtful. For scientific conferences, abstracts are submitted by the lead author - MacFarlane in this case. Typically, if a pharmaceutical company sponsored a trial, it will be noted, but they are not the one submitting. So I disagree with those suggesting it was a "hint" from Missling. Occam's Razor.
Casting aside all the tea leaves and wild stretches, the likely reasons as I see it are below, along the potential implications (+ or -):
1) POS+ MacFarlane submitted the abstract as a late breaker (because results were being compiled after the original deadline) with the original title to the conference review committee. He was then notified that the submission was approved/selected, and then he notified the other co-authors and company. Company realizes the title could be construed as conveying material information and MacFarlane requested the title change on these grounds and it is granted.Being a very small early stage company without entire divisions that handle this type of stuff and review with investigators, I don't think this is entirely out of reason.
2) POS+ It was a clerical error on the conference's part and they used a title from an early submission from MacFarlane before he consulted with the company to ensure it was appropriate. Ie, somebody filled out the program with an old "version 1" file and not an updated "version 2" which is what MacFarlane and the company agreed upon.
3) NEG- the abstract was submitted/approved with the available data at the time, and as more data came in, it altered the results therefore making the original title no longer suitable, so MacFarlane requested the change.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
