Hi primaus72,interesting catch on Eyepoint and their EYP-1901 in...

Hi primaus72,

interesting catch on Eyepoint and their EYP-1901 in wAMD.

The one thing that immediately jumped to my eye when looking at their P2 data in wAMD was the baseline BCVA of their enrollees being absolutely extraordinarily high. Standing at almost 75 letters on the ETDRS chart at the beginning of the study.

We know from all other P3 non-inferiority studies that ultimately lead to an approval to have enrolled patients that started with a baseline BCVA of around 60 letters only.
This holds true for all of:
- Beovu in HAWK and HARRIER,
- Vabysmo in TENAYA and LUCERNE and
- Avastin in CATT

So it seems as if EYP-1901 enrolled kind of super-responders to Eylea only.
As 75 letters for a wAMD patient is a very, very satisfactory result in real word. Allowing such patients to proceed with 99% of their daily live activities including driving a car etc.

So, in the worst case those super-responders Eyepoint selected for their study were eventually kind of „saturated with VEGF-A“ and have just maintained the excellent level of vision improvement for another 6 months without EYP-1901 necessarily having contributed to this effect.

Reducing the treatment burden of the 10% of real world super-responders to Eylea might certainly be worth a business case.
Yet, it certainly does not come close to OPT‘s opportunity of eventually adding an entire line (= 5 letters) to the 80% of real-world patients that respond significantly less well to VEGF-A or more often not at all.