Despite sound science, many recent drug launches are failing. The root cause is not the data but an underinvestment in market conditioning. Cautious investors and tighter budgets mean companies are starting their educational and scientific storytelling efforts too late, failing to prepare the market adequately.

Unlike most trials that avoid patients who failed other therapies, Corvus intentionally included them, considering it a 'stacking deck against yourself'. This high-risk bet, based on their drug's unique mechanism, paid off by showing efficacy in a tough-to-treat population and demonstrating a lack of cross-resistance.

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.

Progress in drug development often hides inside failures. A therapy that fails in one clinical trial can provide critical scientific learnings. One company leveraged insights from a failed study to redesign a subsequent trial, which was successful and led to the drug's approval.

Despite reporting positive Phase 2 asthma data that met the company's stated goals for 12-week dosing, Upstream Bio's stock dropped significantly. The CEO attributes this to the 24-week dosing data being less robust on the primary endpoint, highlighting the gap between achieving clinical goals and meeting nuanced market expectations for a best-case scenario.

Praxis Interactive's essential tremor drug succeeded in Phase 3 despite an earlier data monitoring committee (DMC) recommendation to stop for futility. This rare outcome shows that interim analyses on a small fraction of patients can be misleading due to high variance, and continuing a trial against DMC advice can be a winning strategy.

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.

An analysis revealed that buying a portfolio of biotech firms with poor data in 2022 would have yielded better returns than buying those with great data. This counterintuitive finding highlights the market's tendency to over-punish initial failures and undervalue the potential of strategic pivots.

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.