@RYNZN Just a slight correction regarding DXB. They did have a positive Phase 2 on their current FSGS indication, in fact they showed excellent results via Proteinuria. What they failed was the DKD Phase 2 trial. They do, however, still need to show efficacy in the eGFR slope which was not published/measured in the small Phase 2 trial that they did, so in this sense you are right that they would still to prove that the Proteinuria reduction translates to eGFR. For this reason, I believe DXB decided to accept a few partnerships early as it showed signs of confidence to the company by somewhat validating the IP and the trial design. A sign that there are those who have seen the Phase 2 data and decided to take an "intelligent bet" on the company.
In a similar case, PER also had a superb Phase 2 study on very few patients. I think, PER's science might be more compelling than DXB's - but we wait ofc. The only balancing factor is simply that DXB is running a pivotal, registration trial in hopes of showing eGFR reduction (a higher risk compared to PER's trial in DMD in my opinion, but I'm not qualified. Moreover, DXB has gotten 2 partners to sign deals already, which shows some confidence). In comparison, PER is running a phase 2b trial. I am confident our results will show efficacy, but it remains a Phase 2b.
At the end of the day, DXB is running a registrational trial, we are not.
We have hopes of partnership, DXB has gotten them.
At best, we have hopes of getting to market without a Phase 3, DXB is running a Phase 3.
I am by no means saying that we can't catch up to DXB, I hope we do, in fact I am more overweight PER than most of my other holdings, yet the facts remain, we are where we are, at a point of very high risk and high rewards IMO. DXB's current mc is reflective of the derisking event of getting two partnership deals and nearing the end of their Phase 3 trials. Until we go through some derisking events ourselves, IMO we won't be tripling our market cap. Hence, Dec cannot come any sooner haha.
(20min delay)