Replies to post #447858 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Investor2014]

Saying things like "the trial was successful", met is objectives etc. are open-ended statements, whereas saying "met all endpoints" is definite and specific.

[Joseph_K]

Investor didn't say the trial was unsuccessful; he said it didn't meet all endpoints. The trial could be successful without meeting all endpoints. See the KunJin analysis:

The trial is successful in meeting the co-primary endpoints if the significance of each endpoint is P < 0.05, or if the significance of only one co-primary endpoint is P < 0.025. If only one primary endpoint is significant at an a level of 0.025, then the secondary endpoint will be evaluated at the same level of 0.025. The trial was successful, since the differences in the least-squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to 48 weeks between the blarcamesine and placebo groups were -1.783 [95% CI, -3.314 to -0.251]; (P = 0.0226) for ADAS-Cog13, and -0.456 [95% CI, -0.831 to -0.080]; (P = 0.0175) for CDR-SB in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease.

This clearly proves that "The trial could be successful without meeting all endpoints." You can't argue with that. (Not that we lack people on this board who likely would argue it nonetheless!)

You can argue that Jin had data that allowed him to say all endpoints were met and simply omitted it, but I think that's ridiculous.

BTW, the trial would have been "more successful" had all the endpoints been met.

[williamssc]

Being short is stressful.