Replies to post #387920 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Anshu2]

If the below #2 is correct, then the mean-change should certainly be equal to the subtraction of the two values -- i.e., 2.74 and not 2.26, which contradicts what AVXL is saying.

So?

1. Since they are using the smaller per protocol completers (PP)rather than the expected ITT population I think n should be 161 for placebo and n=301 for treated.
2. The PP cohort is a subset of the whole subset --- the means on 16 are calculated from the entire n=170 and n=338 population while the means on 21 are from the smaller n=161 and n=301 PP cohort

Big question is did the data - either combined, 30 mg or 50 mg hit the endpoint using the ITT or mITT cohorts

[Anshu2]

Also, I read somewhere that ITT can exclude subjects whose data is MISSING.
I could be wrong though ... .is the definition of ITT very clear-cut?

[peeved]

But slide 21 clearly states ITT population!

Did we not meet second primary endpoint either?