Replies to post #179718 on Biotech Values

[biocqr]

OHRP> AF article out...

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12755075/1/ohr-pharma-applies-a-ton-of-lipstick-to-squalamine-pig.html

As I said above, Ohr buried the failure of the study in the fifth paragraph of today's press release. Class act, fellas!

Instead, Ohr spends four-plus paragraphs of the release spouting off nonsense about how Squalamine improved the visual acuity of wet AMD patients enrolled in the study. Don't believe the B.S. for a millisecond, this is just the spin necessary to keep the company's lights on through another desperate financing cycle. Dilution, like winter, is coming.

Ohr states:
The data demonstrated a positive benefit in visual function across multiple clinically relevant endpoints, including a mean change in visual acuity at the end of study visit for the interim analysis group of +10.4 letters with Squalamine eye drops plus Lucentis(R) PRN versus +6.3 letters in the placebo eye drops plus Lucentis PRN arm, a 65 percent additional relative benefit (p=0.18).

Oh my. In other words, Squalamine delivered a 4.1-letter improvement over placebo. Let's award the Nobel Prize! The 65% relative improvement is a cheap statistical stunt. Look at the p value of 0.18. Failure. This is nowhere close to being clinically meaningful.

The rest of Ohr's claims on the squalamine results are data-dredging at its worst.

[DewDiligence]

OHRP—Squalamine's data is pretty good.

Actually, the Squalamine data weren’t impressive at all. To see what good phase-2 data in wet AMD look like, check out #msg-103869631.