While it's possible that there's an important reason, at this...

While it's possible that there's an important reason, at this stage I'm happy to leave the 60 vs 72 as an open question and don't want to read too much into it.

I had a quick scan through the older HC posts (hooray for advanced search!) and found that I put a comment up on 8/8/14 (post 13788766) noting that the Rush Hospital website said 72 rather than 60 as the enrolment number.

At the time I wondered whether it was like the Rett trial where they were looking to recruit 60 with the aim that 48 would finish: the extra 12 enrolments was a contingency. Another possibility is that it's not a deal breaking detail and no-one ever bothered updating clinicaltrials. Note also that in the 2014 AGM report the words "approximately 60" were used, and in RT's address in 2014 he said "at least 60".

So I may well be wrong, but at this stage I stand by my opinion that the trial numbers are not in any way related to the outcome- perceived or otherwise- of the trial.