Eden is not needed for approval but you state as fact that Eden is not needed (presumptively) for NICE reimbursement at a rate that is sustainable as a profitable business model. In order to know that you might have needed to be in on the discussions between the two parties to date. I don’t believe you have been and approval has taken so long that Edens has likely been catching up significantly. I have stated for quite some time that I believe the gap between approval and Edens validation would be minimized on purpose as much as possible. This certainly doesn’t help patients who might be trying to gain greater access but if better access can’t really be had anyway then closing the gap between approval and validation of Edens even with the newer plans for a smaller footprint model/arrangement introduced makes sense. There might even be some bears who have suggested no MHRA decision in 2024 that secretly agree with this hypothesis because they don’t believe any form of reimbursement will be had before advancements with NICE; ). Best wishes.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
