Replies to post #1956 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Re: Japanese Visudyne data:

>> I am sure you already posted, but the wrong impression can be obtained from the passage below.>>

I’m not sure what you mean by “wrong impression.” Please clarify.

Visudyne’s approximately 75% of patients with stable or improved vision is not impressive compared to Squalamine’s 100% of patients in the phase-1/2 trial or Lucentis’ 97.5% in interim data presented last summer.

Further, the fact that QLTI is not touting the percentage of Visudyne patients with improved vision, specifically, suggests that this percentage is not especially impressive.

In short, Visudyne’s Japanese data were good enough to win marketing approval and reimbursement, but still not very good, compared to what is coming.

[swampboots]

<In fact, approximately 3 patients out of 4 participating in this study either maintained or improved their vision as a result of Visudyne therapy>

DEW : I don't wish to belabor the point but thought visual acuity line changes as a measurment, was more useful scientifically when discussing paramiters of improvement.