The most valuable lessons in clinical trial design come from understanding what went wrong. By analyzing the protocols of failed studies, researchers can identify hidden biases, flawed methodologies, and uncontrolled variables, learning precisely what to avoid in their own work.

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 traditional drug-centric trial model is failing. The next evolution is trials designed to validate the *decision-making process* itself, using platforms to assign the best therapy to heterogeneous patient groups, rather than testing one drug on a narrow population.

Abivax's drug has a novel, not fully understood mechanism (miR-124). However, analysts believe strong clinical data across thousands of patients can trump this ambiguity for doctors and regulators, citing historical precedents like Revlimid for drugs that gained approval despite unclear biological pathways.

The lack of a placebo arm in some adjuvant trials is not necessarily a fatal flaw. One expert view is that it mirrors real-world practice where treatments are known. This perspective places trust in the investigators' ability to assess disease progression accurately without blinding.

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.

The FDA's current leadership appears to be raising the bar for approvals based on single-arm studies. Especially in slowly progressing diseases with variable endpoints, the agency now requires an effect so dramatic it's akin to a parachute's benefit—unmistakable and not subject to interpretation against historical data.

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.