RVNC - Yeah, their marketing material seems a risk. They have a big advantage in duration (between 60 and 75%) and it seems odd to push past the boundary of the FDA approved secondary endpoints (which use loss of either patient or provider assessed benefit counts as loss of benefit - whereas company, and published papers, use maintenance of either as 'still meet criteria').
Comment: I don't know legal/regulatory history on this, but it was a little surprising they don't use return to baseline, which is actually a prespecified secondary endpoint in ClinicalTrials, seems to actually be longer and is also in a published paper?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
