Dew,
RT002 needs to show non-inferiority to Botox to be a lucrative asset to a larger pharma. My opinion is that the side effects/AEs won't be any worse than Botox.
However, RT002 needs to clearly show a superior/comparable 2 point change and score improvement duration when compared to botox.
If both the 2-point change and the score improvement duration are inferior to botox, then RT002 might not be a lucrative candidate for acquisition.
To this end, I want to know your thoughts on an unanswered question while doing due diligence on this ticker.
1. From company's PR on pre-phase 3 meeting with FDA:
"The primary endpoint of these studies will be a composite of the proportion of subjects who achieve a score of 0 or 1 (none or mild) and a two-point improvement from baseline"
Slide 12 on Aug'17 presentation has >= 1 point improvement from baseline. Given that FDA is interested in two-point improvement, why isn't there a graph for two-point improvement and comparison against
Botox so that we can clearly understand the efficacy of RT002.
2. Slide 16 puts the 2pt or more change percentage at 51% of the ITT population. In pearson's article for short thesis on RVNC, point #6, he publishes a table that puts botox's 2 point score at 30days to be 93%.
However, given that he is short, I don't want to take his table at face value and I want to find out the original source from allergan to see if this is true.
Have you reached out to RVNC to get a concise answer on how their 2-pt change compares against botox at week 4 and week24? They must have this data from the last trial. Why is not being made public?
Thanks
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
