Biotech Values

[mouton29]

Iwfal’s point is that Durysta didn’t show endothelial loss at 6 months either. See the discussion on endothelial loss in the results section of the article cited below, very small separation of the curves, and only towards the end.

On the other hand, Durysta doesn’t seems to be fully absorbed, see this discussion, so that might explain why repeated dosing is problematic:

Implants were typically observed to initially swell as they biodegraded, and the majority of those received at the first administration visit (day 1) were estimated by the investigator to be 76–125% of their initial size at assessments through month 6. By 12 months, the majority of those implants had either totally biodegraded (n?=?6) or were estimated to be ≤?25% of their initial size (n?=?26). At month 24, a total of 34 patients were evaluated with gonioscopy, and the implant administered on day 1 had biodegraded and was no longer visible in 26.5% (9/34) of these patients. Of all implants administered on day 1 (including two implants per study eye for the 20-µg dose strength), 30 implants (in 25 eyes) were still visible at month 24. Size assessment was missing for 6.7% (2/30) of these implants; of those assessed, the implant size was estimated to be ≤?25% of initial size for 75.0% (21/28) of the implants and 26–50% of initial size for 25.0% (7/28) of the implants. Analysis of residual implant at month 24 was limited to assessments for patients who did not meet criteria of total implant biodegradation allowing early study completion (at or after month 18

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7007425/