More pets is alwasy better, but Jackjazz's fine analysis is spot on - Elanco was in on the trial from the design stage and all the way through to when PAA announced they had collected enough data to end it.
PAA had promised a drug that provided "progressive free (of the cancer) survival", and they delivered EXACTLY that. Even the dog which was disqualified from the trial because it had to be given an anti-inflammatory (but continued to recieve treatment) was reported alive and well 120 days after it had begun recieving MPL treatment. Let's put that in context: untreated naive b cell lymphoma kills on average 50% of dogs within a month of diagnosis. It kills almost 100% in just over a couple of months. ALL SEVEN DOGS INCLUDING THE DISQUALIFIED ONE WERE SURVIVING MONTHS AFTER THE TRIAL VINDICATING THE YEARS OF INTENSE LAB WORK AT UNSW, ONJCRI AND PAA\ ITSELF. AND ITS A MUCH EASIER WAY TO TREAT THE DISEASE THAN THE CURRENT STANDARD OF CARE CHEMO. THE ONLY SURPRISE WAS ONE DOG AND IT WAS A POSITIVE SURPRISE SHOWING THAT MPL MAY HAVE A BIPHASIC NATURE AND THEREFORE MAY BE EVEN BETTER THAN WAS EXPECTED !!!!! SO PAA HAVE DELIVERED\ - THERE ARE NO IFS OR BUTS. \ Whatever caused Elanco's decision, it was due to reasons purely restricted to Elanco. The drug however lived up to all the hopes that had been created by the lab work on cancer cell cultures and lab mice. EOS
(20min delay)