Replies to post #501149 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[frrol]

Notably, Missing has not even mentioned 3-71 lately. With a readout pending. That you don't want to see as an investor.
Regarding what Mayo "observes", that has unfortunately has low credibility. I wish that weren't the case.
Regarding the LoI, the company has much bigger incentives than CTAD of course. The timing might incidentally fit.

[abew4me]

Glad you mentioned the upcoming CTAD conference this December. Last year's (2024) CTAD was a big eye-opener...especially slide 13.

Dr. Sabbagh presented that the Anavex AD p2b/3 trial fits into FDA and EMA guidelines in slide 13...per ChatPTG:

"Yes, the FDA and EMA have distinct definitions and staging criteria for Alzheimer’s disease, though they both focus on early detection and intervention. Here’s how their approaches compare, particularly in the context of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scores.

FDA Staging:

In its 2018 guidelines, the FDA introduced staging that broadly aligns with the clinical progression of Alzheimer’s and focuses on facilitating early intervention.
For example, Stage 1 in the FDA guidelines corresponds to a preclinical phase, with no noticeable symptoms but positive biomarkers.
Stage 2 corresponds to subtle cognitive decline without significant functional impairment, while Stage 3 aligns with MCI (often CDR 0.5), where cognitive symptoms may be apparent but do not meet criteria for full dementia.

EMA Approach:

The EMA also recognizes MCI as a separate category and focuses on “prodromal” Alzheimer’s, which can correspond to a CDR 0.5 score.
The EMA’s guidance emphasizes different stages based on symptom severity and biomarkers but does not explicitly break down stages as the FDA does.
In many cases, prodromal Alzheimer’s disease per EMA standards can be considered equivalent to FDA Stage 3.

Key Differences:

The FDA’s staging tends to be more granular, particularly at earlier disease stages (preclinical and MCI), while the EMA focuses more on clinical presentation and biomarker evidence of disease.
The FDA’s Stage 3 (MCI) is often matched to CDR 0.5 and includes biomarker evidence, while the EMA’s framework may sometimes include a broader range of early symptoms at this stage without requiring biomarkers.
In summary, while the two agencies aim for alignment in recognizing early stages, the FDA offers a slightly more structured staging (Stages 1-3) to guide clinical development, while the EMA’s criteria are generally centered on clinical presentation and may allow for slightly more flexibility in defining MCI (prodromal stage) without strict biomarker requirements."