Thanks, good context! The point I was refering to was the...

Thanks, good context! The point I was refering to was the pricing issues associated with targeted two indications at opposite ends of the prevalance spectrum, rather than the award of the orphan designation. It's just not attractive to target something so rare, if your price is set by a large mature market. Differential pricing has never been executed on in practice as far as I'm aware.

that being said it's a nice problem to have, but I don't see a route to making a good commercial case in both, simultaneously. You definitely see instances of companies going rare disease first, then expanding out, but there not a massive amount of time to LoE so I'm unsure of that aporoach here. Regarding Ph3 with orphan drug being quick, I think recruitment there is going to be rate limiting, as seen in the sparsentan Ph3 which has dragged on a bit. With sparsentan on the market, finding patients will be more challenging.

i think the data looks competitive in both indications, it's just deciding which route looks more commercially viable and doing both will be tough