LabKate said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome. It is a phase 2 result in a few hundred participants with no cardiovascular endpoint and no long-term safety data, and this board has a habit of treating pipeline numbers as settled.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.

PurityPaulOR said:

I would rather people stopped quoting the 24% as if it were a licensed outcome.

Coming at PurityPaulOR’s question from a different direction. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Following on from Dr.RaviCardio — and this may be the naive question:

What the phase 2 dropout pattern implies about how the phase 3 tolerability will read?

Reporting back.

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.