Its just the same things said before regarding the safety trials. Nothing is expected, but the best is hoped for. Nothing new or refreshing in that article for me. It would be unethical to tell the patients that they can expect their vision to improve (even though its been evidenced with the rats) particularly when the dosage is a relatively small amount. Still, if enough RPE cells anchor, then its biologically possible for improved vision. But then, that's what we're expecting with the latter phases of the trials. Biological improvement. The difference being that the latter patients will have less vision impairment to begin with and more cells. How much difference do these factors make? Its easy for me to see why the latter makes a big difference, but I am not learned about the former.
I think it all comes down to whether the eyes in these first patients are capable of hosting the RPEs. Its implied that patients with less vision loss will better hosts the RPE cells. Obviously if none of the RPE cells find anchor, then no improvement can be expected. Also, this approach isn't a cure...more of a therapy that needs to be repeated every so often untill the root cause of the disease can be treated. This is actually good news for heartless investors since it means recurring revs.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
