Biotech Values

[jmarce]

Just to elaborate on my Twitter response;

Comparing to $FCSC P1 - age range 20-37, wound size treated 4.4-23.2cm^2 and 1/6 placebo healed out to 12 weeks before re-opening btwn 25-32. 10cm^2 wounds regularly bandaged and the placebo wound that healed re-opened in 2 months for $KRYS seems in-line with caveat of small N

-the study design was for a first cohort of adults and a second cohort including peds. The age range is similar to the first cohort from FCSC’s P1 so I don’t have a problem with that.

-untreated wounds healing is not unheard of as there’s still standard of care (bandaging.) As I noted FCSC also had a wound heal for a short period of time before reopening. The time it took to heal and subsequently re-open compared to the treated wounds is encouraging but more data is obviously needed in a larger sample to get a better idea of response compared to placebo.

-funding wise a raise would not be unexpected, they have a decent cash position and their burn since inception has been very reasonable in my opinion but they are bringing a second program into the clinic and building out manufacturing. My time horizon is years so dilution is inevitable like it is for most development stage biotechs.

-not taking questions I can’t defend

I’m obviously biased but i can appreciate the skepticism especially when dealing with such small N but based on what I expected going into the readout I’m happy with the data presented today as a first step towards proof of concept.