RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:72% CR at any point in time.Wildbird, once again, I’m neither pretending nor misleading. All the numbers I quote are taken directly from the respective MD&As. In Nov22 we had 40 evaluable patients, 21 CRs and 6 IRs at 90 days (Phase II alone), now we have 52 evaluable patients, 28 CRs and 6 IRs at 90 days (Phase II alone). This means we added 7 CRs, 0 IRs and, by consequence, 5 NRs at 90 days. Now you’re right, not all of these show at the bottom (the 90-day column) of the current plot. But that can only (if you trust the company to report their raw data correctly) be explained by the five-month period that sits in between these reporting dates. The five months allow for some of these 12, in theory even 11 as they reported 51 treated patients in Nov22, to have had their 180-days assessment already (some may have had their 90-days in Dec and their 180-days in March), so you may find these now in the ‘second cohort’ from the bottom. Similarly, some of the patients that only had their 90-days assessment reported in Nov22, may now already have completed their 270-days assessment. The thing is, we don’t know for how many this may have been the case, making it impossible to say exactly who is located in which cohort and moved from where to where. Is that a problem? Maybe for Houston, but not for me. The picture the plot presents is crystal clear and, imo, positive.
That said, it remains a fact that in a trial where non-responding patients sooner or later do not get assessed anymore, in a swimmers’ plot of that trial the well-responding patients over time move up (as they keep on being assessed) while the non-responding patients stagnate at and near the bottom (as they don’t get assessed anymore). This makes the making of comparisons as you did in your OP between swimmer plots a tricky affair. I’ll leave it here. Good luck with your investment.