kate.chem said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

I read this differently from kate.chem, on substance rather than tone. Small molecule does not automatically mean cheap. Price is set by what the market will bear and by patent life, not by cost of goods, and I would not assume the savings reach patients.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator. Three questions, and they resolve most disagreements in these threads.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

DanielChem_CHI said:

Small molecule does not automatically mean cheap.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud. Trial participants get titration by protocol, scheduled contact, free drug and dietetic support; removing that infrastructure costs a few percentage points every time it has been measured. When your own curve sits below the published mean, that is the likeliest explanation before anything about you or your material.

Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

One thing that is still open after fiona_VT’s answer:

How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have. That was reassuring rather than otherwise.