Hang in there!!, page-83

Thanks for the correction @PigRace - much appreciated. I felt there was a void there I needed to look into, and you have made it easy.

So the market has probably factored in them needing another $180 USD roughly, or $275m AUD - allowing for a margin of safety, and assuming costs drop after patients reach 12 months, and necessary tests are completed.

I still do think my points above are related to box ticking to gain that funding.

One thing that is very interesting is that a competing treatment in clinical trials released their interim data on the 3rd November: https://www.modernretina.com/view/r...ase-2-altitude-trial-for-diabetic-retinopathy

"At six months, patients treated with RGX-314 demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in disease severity versus observation control as measured by the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study-Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS).

Specifically:

• 20% (D1: 40%, D2: 11%) achieved ≥2-step DRSS improvement vs. 10% in control
• 54% (D1: 60%, D2: 51%) achieved any DRSS improvement vs. 20% in control
• 0% (D1: 0%, D2: 0%) worsened ≥2 steps vs. 20% in control

A ≥2-step improvement in DRSS at 12 months has been accepted as a pivotal endpoint by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for DR clinical trials."

So 24% were either stable or worsened, versus 70% in the control by my maths. I'm not sure what proportion need to achieve the endpoint for trial success. If those results were awesome it might have slowed down the enrolments for OPT, and possibly impacted DD by the funder, and other potential funders. Just a thought with the benefit of hindsight. Somebody might correct me if I am definitely drawing the wrong conclusion here.