Short answer first, then the reasoning. Relative and absolute effects need reading together. A 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit; the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one, and press summaries almost always quote the relative number because it is bigger.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

kate.chem said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

No disagreement with kate.chem. One condition attached. The manufacturing argument is the underrated one. Peptide synthesis capacity has been the binding constraint on this entire class, and a small molecule is made in ordinary chemical plants. If it holds up in phase 3, the supply and price picture changes more than the efficacy picture does.

TomFromTexas said:

I have been following the oral non-peptide data since phase 2 and I am trying to work out how much of the enthusiasm here is about efficacy and how…

Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

Happy to go further on any of that.