All told, the CC was painful to listen to. In response to nearly every question, the AAVL executives gave non-answers that merely repeated the figures from the press release (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/avalanche-biotechnologies-inc-announces-positive-200200882.html ). They also repeated at every opportunity that this was a “positive” phase-2 study, as though they were trying to convince themselves.
Management had no credible explanation for the inverted outcome on the OCT-thickness metric. (The worst-case scenario here, which nobody discussed, is that the increase in OCT thickness for patients in the AVA-101 arm was due to the AVA-101 procedure itself.) Management also danced around the question of whether a mean reduction of one injection per year (for the AVA-101 arm vs the control arm) was a meaningful practical benefit.
The statsig gain in VA from baseline (for the AVA-101 arm vs the control arm) seemed impressive at first glance, but the control arm performed much worse on VA than Lucentis PRN-dosed patients have performed in any other trial I’m aware of.
Bottom line: I remain unconvinced that gene therapy is a fruitful approach to treating a multifaceted disease such as wet AMD (#msg-112775480). I would not go so far as to say the AVL-101 program is dead, by I think it faces an uphill battle.
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated in any area of human knowledge!”
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.