I guess it depends upon the author of the PR. I’m pretty sure they never intended it to be picked apart this avidly.
I’m going with the face value of the information and let the chips fall where they may. I believe this is intended as 100% unambiguous positive announcement. While leaving room for others to have their thoughts differ accordingly,
“Doesn't the comma after the word patient imply it was the first patient? “
That is how I read it. It really can’t be anyone else. PR’s is a major way to communicate to stakeholders and to imply it is other than the very first patient would indicate a very misleading statement. The people behind the PR’s are professionals and thus one should believe they wouldn’t be sloppy or misleading.
Its really what it says. The first patient moved from the first phase into the extension of the trial study. If the drug would not present relief the volunteer patient or his her parents would not permit to continue the trial in the extension phase. Would you? I would not. Heck it does not do anything but lets continue vitamin C placebo. Ofcourse not. Its the same news with the Alzheimer extension...!