Agreed good spot, this nugget was dropped in the presentation:
Masked data from patients that have completed the week 52 visit in the ongoing Phase 3 clinical trials show greater mean BCVA increases from baseline than results with standard of care anti-VEGF-A monotherapy from Opthea’s Phase 2b study.
We know management don't have much skin in the game and have made mistakes....we know these trials are very expensive... but how many ASX listed biotechs take something all the way in a huge double pivotal trial in a massive multi bil indication without licensing or partnering? I don't seem to find that many. Perhaps on the other side of all the capex ($500m total?) it will result in a much greater reward for shareholders? We can rue all the missteps along the way, but at this point we just need to finish this long & expensive trial and see the data.
I am of the opinion, things could and almost definitely will look very different in 12 months time....
Its amazing how undervalued this company is if the thesis plays out. Just look at the revenue cadence of Vabysmo from Roche (
https://www.reuters.com/business/he... sales of Vabysmo,of about 890 million francs.) Almost 1bn in the first year and this is from another me-too VEGF A which has a durability claim over Eylea. People questioning commercial appeal here dont understand the size of the indication. Is there any company going after
superiority in wet AMD against Eylea? Nope. Its a tall ask everybody says! They say Eylea is the King in this disease. And "if you go against the king, you best not miss". I guess you could say we would be the one and only injection with a superiority claim on top of Eylea. That has got to be worth a lot especially as everything else is just a me-too. I guess there are also valid reason to doubt considering the time and costs thus far, but as some other poster said that is just the reality of taking something all the way to a pivotal ph3 trial in an indication dominated by the big pharma boys.
(20min delay)