I guess I am getting deep into weeds, I haven’t been smoking for decades if you wonder whether I had smoked something before writing this, but I got this idea to compare the dropout rate between Reference 1 and actual 2 years dropouts from Phase 2a. Let me present a picture which shall say thousand words to you (because I can’t):
Let’s sketch the background first. The green line is the normalized to 32 patients the number of patients still in the study, expected per Reference 1. One can notice that the first year the retaining rate is .9375, all other years it is between .58 to .7, and the average of .66 excluding first year If the average rate would hold sway from the beginning the black line would determine the retained patients count in the study. Notice that it ends with the same participants at the six years mark.
At the mark of first year in ANAVEX 2-73 Phase 2a trial the 32 participants dwindled to 26 and at the time of KEM analysis (2 year mark) to 21. This gives about .80 retaining rate over two periods, steady and consistent. If we keep the rate of retention the same over additional periods we end up at the mark of 6 years with 9 patients versus 2 for Reference 1.
Seemingly, the difference between .66 and .80 retaining rate is rather small yet over few periods it accumulates. Would that be another reason to break out in festivities over ANAVEX 2-73 superiority or just another exercise in massaging data which will be soon tested?
Extrapolating data is fun but real life might be rather “non-linear”. The curve per Reference 1 suggests acceleration of dropouts from one year on. The dropout rate for ANAVEX 2-73 seems to be uncannily steady, albeit we have only two data points versus six to make such inference. Nevertheless, many phenomena in natural sciences follow steady exponential decay.
If I read myself correctly I suggest that the dropout rate of Reference 1 might be skewed at the beginning study and then at the end basically outcome is converging to the same given by exponential decay curve. How nice, it is to deconstruct your own personal intentions! In the same vein ANAVEX 2-73 might not show this bias (at year one) and then again might have its own (further on) that is the therapeutics effect of ANAVEX 2-73 as it stabilizes dropout rates even at smaller than those in HIgh Concentration Cohort doses.
Next thing: Positions of constellations and planet and ANAVEX 2-73!
I cannot recall which sex of 3xTg murine model mice performed better and also could not find anything on my computer so I turned to IR. I hope I get the data for further speculation on the subject of neuroinflammation.