Red - Great Job!! Get this post documented in a Yellow Sticky at a minimum. Plus you are hired to get the Weekly Report started as I posted earlier... LOL.
Loved to be able to do a one shop of info like this that is kept current for this board.
That conversation with IR help confirm my understanding of what they are saying, and I don't think anything wrong has occurred to break the required blinding.
AFs comments have been fully and creditably rebutted in my opinion.
The only real issues remaining are whether the FDA determines the AVATAR study is strong enough to support a NDA, or if the FDA will advise it needs more evidence for a pivotal study to be considered.
This bit is causing me bib bib bib, does not compute trouble.
It is inconsistent with the official 8-K files PR as quoted below.
According to above the changes made to the AVATAR trial were NOT approved by the FDA. It does of course not mean that the FDA might disagree if or rather when Anavex plan "to meet with the FDA to discuss the approval pathway". When is that meeting planned for; soon, just around the corner or year-end after the EXCELLENCE readout, that is THE question?
I don't believe the FDA would proactively reach out to Anavex, or any company, with advice to change the primary endpoint and upgrade the trial from P2 to P3. Guidance from the FDA would come during a formal meeting appointment. Just like I am sure Anavex had planned meetings with the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and in Australia by the Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC).
The only time FDA will reach out directly is to halt a trial for safety based on a DSMB/DMC trial report.