Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What the phase 2 dropout pattern implies about how the phase 3 tolerability will read?
Dr.PeteFamMed said: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.
Coming at Dr.PeteFamMed’s question from a different direction. 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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Rereading it with the dropout table open changed my view. I still think it is the most interesting molecule in the pipeline; I no longer think the 24% is the number that will end up on a label.
Dr.GutHealth said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.