Share
259 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 19
clock Created with Sketch. 11/05/20
09:00
Share
Originally posted by akubra:
↑
I think Opthea's asset is safe, effective, desirable, and very undervalued. But the view of the ocular landscape as pitched by the company looks a bit biased to me. Opthea likes to paint a world view of limited competition focused on duration and not acuity.I am not sure it is a fair description. A quick overview of the ocular landscape : much more crowded than what OPHTEA wants us to believe. Is acuity really that important over duration? The market caps of those comps, US$1.5b to $2.5b are x3 to x5 bigger than OPTHEA! .KOD has been awarded the highest MC of all of the companies discussed here but-(because?) their solution will enable injections about every three months. the patients do not want to come into the clinic every month for an intra vitreal injection of an anti VEGF. The long term, real world results for anti VEGF therapy do not match the results seen in the clinical trials. There is a progressive loss of visual acuity as measured by letters and confirmed with worsening retinal thickness. Both the retinal specialists and the patients want a solution that gives a longer duration of therapy. The field that we are competing against is clearly trying to improve the duration of therapy and does not appear to concentrate on a slight improvement in visual acuity offered by complete inhibition of all three isotypes of VEGF. This requires monthly injections and the retinal specialists have already stated that this is not possible in the real world. There are just too many patients coming into the clinics and there are not enough retinal specialists to do the injections.
Expand
Hi Akubra,
(20min delay)