"I would not be at all surprised if there is some SP reaction but I would not expect a huge move (beyond 4.2 or below 2.5)
Technically you have a 95% chance of being accurate. A move up to 4.2 would be right at resistance and at the top of the Bollinger bands which contains 95% of the price action of a financial instrument. There is only a 5% chance that it moves outside those parameters. If price moves above 4.2 it will break the three year down trend.
I wouldn't want anyone to be disappointed because a "genetic marker" isn't named.
This is the same Phase 2a with the same tiny group and without a placebo to compare. Possibly, the only new data will be that a genetic marker will be named, specifically rather than generally, that was associated with a better outcome. The scientists and clinicians in the audience will be scanning the slides for the placebo comparator and wondering why none was included. The analysts in the room will be checking their watch to see how much longer they need to wait for BIIB's talk.
We are looking for biomarkers not genetic markers. These terms are not synonymous.
Perspective on future role of biological markers in clinical therapy trials of Alzheimer’s disease: A long-range point of view beyond 2020 Harald Hampel a, *, Simone Lista b, *, Stefan J. Teipel c,d , Francesco Garaci e,f , Robert Nistico` g,h , Kaj Blennow i , Henrik Zetterberg i,j , Lars Bertram k , Charles Duyckaerts l , Hovagim Bakardjian m,n , Alexander Drzezga o , Olivier Colliot p,q,r,s,t , Ste´phane Epelbaum u,v , Karl Broich w, Ste´phane Lehe´ ricy n,p,q,r,s , Alexis Brice p,q,r,s,x , Zaven S. Khachaturian y , Paul S. Aisen z , Bruno Dubois u,v
A Precision Medicine Initiative for Alzheimer’s disease: the road ahead to biomarker-guided integrative disease modeling. Harald Hampel, Sid O’bryant, Stanley Durrleman, Erfan Younesi, Katrine Rojkova, Valentina Escott-Price, Jean-Christophe Corvol, Karl Broich, Bruno Dubois, Simone Lista
Your supposition is not wrong with regard to AAIC; however, I believe, as in the past, Anavex will continue to compare its results against historical placebo data from past Alz trials, which have be developed over decades of time and is a good comparative measure in assessing the potential of a drug candidate. Only the naysayers will dismiss any reports of good data.