Aslan, you asked what others think, i.e.
<I would be surprised if it takes long before SRDX gets its first licensing agreement, but I would also be interested in hearing what others think. BTW, I don't think there is good economic incentive for Genetech to pursue sustained release until IVT-injected Lucentis market share is threatened.>
I share the view you articulated earlier concerning I-vation/steroid treatment being a good adjuvant in combination with other therapies... I also agree that an economic incentive, such as a threat to Lucentis market share, would accelerate innovations that might use the I-vation platform/steroid in combination with Lucentis. But I don't see this threat on the horizon; it may be that I-vation/steroid combination therapy with another agent (such a the VEGF Trap) might come first.
Personally, I do not have great expectations regarding siRNA strategies for AMD... This bias, and it is a bias not a strong negative feeling, comes from my experience with siRNA in cell cultures (i.e. I have been able to reduce message levels, but usually only to about 50-70% of the pre-treatment levels)... I worry that greater effectiveness will be required in an in vivo situation. However, data will trump my intuition every time.
I also worry that other companies will be able to match an I-vation/steroid strategy with another steroid and another implant; there does not appear to be a strong barrier to entry for this paradigm. I think that SRDX has one big advantage, however, and that is brand name and experience. This advantage will be important if they can partner with a company that does not want to develop implant strategies in house.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
