Replies to post #430511 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Anshu2]

Yes (to your key Q on cog scores).

[abew4me]

Joseph.

I don't have an answer for your specific question...but I take comfort in knowing that the FDA's former lead statistician was probably the one that finalized all of the numbers that were published in today's press release...Dr. Kun Jin

Anavex Life Sciences Appoints Former FDA Lead Neurology Statistician as VP Head of Biostatistics

https://www.anavex.com/post/anavex-life-sciences-appoints-former-fda-lead-neurology-statistician-as-vp-head-of-biostatistics

[Anshu2]

If placebo’s Cog (mean) score goes from X to Y, then the decline is (X-Y).

If treatment’s decline is (A-B) then the percentage reduction in decline of treatment vs placebo would be:

(A-B) - (X-Y)
—————- x 100
(X-Y)

[Joseph_K]

Answering my own question (or, more accurately, having ChatGPT help me answer it),

The numbers **-3.314** and **-0.251** are the **lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI)**, respectively, for the difference in LSM change from baseline to End-of-Trial between the drugged and placebo groups. The 95% CI is a range of values that is likely to contain the true value of the difference in LSM change from baseline to End-of-Trial between the drugged and placebo groups with a probability of 95%. In other words, if we were to repeat the clinical trial many times, we would expect that 95% of the time, the true value of the difference in LSM change from baseline to End-of-Trial between the drugged and placebo groups would fall within this range.

I conclude that the press release lacks sufficient information for anyone to determine the percentage by which blarcamesine slowed decline of the patients with respect to the conditions measured by ADAS-Cog13 and CDR-SB.