fair counter-argument. "why do you think advanz happily made $10.7m upfront on this?" can't comment on their business strategy, my research on them shows they seem to be a generics/biosimilar focus company with interest in going to rare diseases. no nephrology portfolio, means they will need to build nephrology network to commercialise this asset. as I said in earlier post, 10.7m AUD is loose change for a 500m USD business and according to the deal structure communicated by dimerx, advanz appears to have little or no exposure to the development risk? who know, maybe if the phase 2 dmx results had been stronger they'd have put up a much larger upfront?
"do they have better/updated data perhaps?" I wouldn't know, do you know? not sure what new data that would be? the phase 2 would surely be too small and short to provide meaningful GFR data and if there was such important data then the company would have been expected to release to market already. the only other placebo-controlled results I'm aware of for this asset is their diabetes kidney disease study, but I read that flopped.
agree with your statistics comments. for transparency sake and best practice the p value and confidence intervals should have been communicated when the results from the phase 2 were released, but they weren't, at least not in the stuff I have seen. I would say that for any company. looked at the other way, had the p value and confidence intervals been great, they'd have been promoted in highlights in all material releases.
DXB Price at posting:
24.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)