not siginficantly so - but if I was a patient I'd chose the one that gave the extra 2 months - and, more importantly, side effects are less than standard of care. Which one would you chose for yourself? Always need to think about clinical signicance versus statistical significance. hey but I'm only a arthritis doc.
these small numbers continuing 10 weeks after stopping therapy (26 wk rx) is impressive. But if only at 36 wks and not 27 then got to wonder why. Of course, we dont' know if 27 wk data were unimpressive as assumed or not. Could have been even more impressive at 36 wks if continued rx for full interval. NIH.gov does not even mention 36 weeks as secondary outcome - strange. And no one expected a drug so far removed from an "unmet need" would gain approval on phase 2 alone. That's why you do phase 2 - to optimize your selection of endpoints. Were they hard at work mining data or is this legit?