Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

>>If you looked at per patient instead of per eye then it would be right on target almost with the 33%. This could be a better way to look at it since the drug would probably have a different efficacy per patient then per eye.<<

You can’t have two shots on goal like that.

I was being gracious in lumping the non-study eyes in with the study eyes because the non-study eyes happened to perform better. However, if you want to analyze these data by the book (i.e. the way the FDA does it), you count only the study eyes. There, the rate of improved vision, defined as a gain of 3+ line relative to baseline, was 0/6=0%.

Sorry, but your 33% argument doesn’t come close to holding water.