Replies to post #379066 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[JKS3]

True to certain extent. The consensus in AD research community is that alteration of progression (slope change) is the key. That’s what is stressed in Biogen and Eisai trial as well. Overall, I think the impact of the changes is minimal in comparison with the changes in Avatar. All the data points must be released (such as Acadia did) to earn trust (unless Dr. M refuses).
In the Avatar trial, if all the data are legit and transparent, Anavex2-73 would have been approved (or close to) everywhere. Few medications, if any, for developmental diseases have an effect size of 2 (Cohen’s D) with statistical significance. Well…..

[Hoskuld]

I think when a person sells covered calls that they will often attempt to sow a little doubt in others by raking back up issues that were debated and settled. Endpoint "changes" were debated here extensively already.

The data will talk soon.

[boi568]

Why is it necessary to release original endpoint data if using a revised, AUC methodology that was adopted before the company had access to the trial results? Is an AUC measurement inherently inadequate at all times?

[LakeshoreLeo1953]

some sort of AUC type analysis which might be fine as long as the original endpoint is also released. Failing to do so will lead to another Avatar fiasco

I probably should have made that my "Febish" moniker as has been my concern since.....