Hang in there!!, page-134

Just adding one point to your post, whytee.

One thing that makes me particularly confident in that OPT will show positive P3 results is the following:

Typical comments on the P2b point out the trial having shown a mean change in BCVA of +3.4 letters (p = 0.0107) for the overallpopulation in the 2.0 mg group.

“Overall population“ including all three lesion types, that‘s predominantly classic (10-20% of real world), minimally classic and occult (each 40-45%).

Usually followed by a notice that topline readout for P3 will by based on the more effective minimally classic and occult groups only. So far so good. Nothing new.

Now it comes. What strikes me every time again is how little attention is paid to the fact that P3 does not include retinal angiomatous proliferation (RAP) detected patients as P2b did.

Therefore, our „base take away“ P2b results for the relevant 2.0 mg group should be the +4.4 letters (p = 0.0025) shown for the overall population ex RAP patients. Again, as those RAP patients ain‘t eligible for P3 anyway.

Relatively, there seems to be much more talk on the P2b‘s +5.7 letters (p = 0.0002) for the minimally classic and occult patients ex RAP.

Yet, this +4.4 letters, without „artificially“ taking out the classic lesions, is what really influences my personal confidence in next year’s P3 readout and what makes me dare to be more optimistic than I think the market is and to hold a larger position in OPT than I usually would for a company that‘s not fully funded for trial read-out.

I think there is just too little value paid to the fact that P3 won‘t be diluted by the 10-15% of RAP patients as P2b still was.

Does anybody disagree on this „little source of personal optimism“?