To frame its trial results positively, Compass Pathways used less stringent definitions for key endpoints. It defined 'clinically meaningful reduction' and 'remission' at levels below the common standard, a tactic that calls into question the true magnitude of the drug's benefit.
Related Insights
Many medtech companies design large trials where a tiny, clinically meaningless response can be statistically significant. Dr. Holman advises entrepreneurs to instead run rigorous trials that prove genuine clinical value, arguing that credible data is the ultimate moat, even if it carries a higher risk of failure.
Compass Pathways' stock surged despite its depression drug showing a smaller-than-expected effect. Investors grade on a curve, recognizing the difficulty of psychiatric trials and prioritizing statistically significant results over the magnitude of benefit, given the commercial success of similar drugs.
The company reports 'overall MMR,' which includes patients maintaining a prior response—a less rigorous metric than 'MMR achievement' (new responses). The CEO notes that discerning investors are focused on the latter, more challenging endpoint, revealing a key area of due diligence for the company's impressive data.
The trial's 57.1% pathologic complete response (pCR) rate is deceptively conservative. It categorized patients who responded well but declined surgery as non-responders, suggesting the treatment's true biological efficacy is even higher than the already impressive reported figure.
After a decade on the market and multiple shifts in endpoints, Sarepta's definitive Phase 3 study for its DMD drugs failed. This outcome casts doubt on the entire accelerated approval framework for slowly progressive diseases, where surrogate endpoints may not translate to clinical benefit, leaving regulators and patients in a difficult position.
The CREST trial's positive primary endpoint, assessed by investigators in an open-label setting, was rendered negative upon review by a blinded independent committee. This highlights the critical risk of confirmation bias and the immense weight regulators place on blinded data to determine a drug's true efficacy, especially when endpoints are subjective.
Contrary to market convention, a trial delay can be a bullish signal. When an independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) recommends adding more patients, as with Bristol's ADEPT-2 study, it implies they've seen a therapeutic signal worth salvaging, potentially increasing the trial's ultimate chance of success.
When questioned about discrepancies where a 24-week dose underperformed on the primary endpoint but was strong on secondary ones, the CEO avoided direct comparisons. Instead, he framed the results as a 'totality of evidence' supporting the drug's profile, a key communication tactic for presenting complex or imperfect data positively to investors and regulators.
Experts believe the stark difference in complete response rates (5% vs 30%) between two major ADC trials is likely due to "noise"—variations in patient populations (e.g., more upper tract disease) and stricter central review criteria, rather than a fundamental difference in the therapies' effectiveness.
Ocular Therapeutix's trial prioritized a primary endpoint designed to satisfy FDA requirements for a superiority label—a key regulatory win. However, the CEO stresses that clinicians use different metrics like OCT fluid, where their drug "easily beat Eylea." This highlights a crucial strategy: separate the endpoint needed for approval from the data that drives physician adoption.
