>> Possible drug interactions with squalamine that were previously unobserved? <<
I didn’t detect anything along those lines. Rather, I sensed Levitt’s backing off to some degree from prior assertions that it’s reasonable for investors to expect Squalamine to blow away the competition by improving vision for a substantial proportion of patients by 3+ lines relative to baseline (the standard definition of improved vision). At R&R, Levitt seemed almost resigned to the fact that no single therapy is likely to triumph over AMD and that stabilization of vision is a more realistic goal.
Is this new posture related to the lowering of the Squalamine dose from 40-80mg in the phase-1/2 trial, to 20-40mg in the “209” phase-2 trial, to 10-40mg in the “208” and “207”phase-2 trials? That’s what I am trying to ascertain.
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”