I wouldn’t be surprised if the interim analysis
Post# of 148179
As an example, I’m using what just happened with Acasti. They were going to announce secondary endpoints of their two recent phase 3 trials (Last Dec/Jan) only after successfully achieving and announcing the results of their primary endpoint. When their first study had a high placebo effect and couldn’t show statistical significance they never moved toward secondary endpoint analysis. Or just never did it with an eye on publishing results. Might be a similar thing we see here. 14 would be great but they may only want to look at 28 first.