NurseKim_ATL said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

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.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

One concrete data point for the thread. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.

InsuranceTom said:

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

Coming at InsuranceTom’s question from a different direction. 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.

Following on from SleepFixSam — and this may be the naive question:

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

Closing the loop on my own question.

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.