Yes, GSK. I really believe that their presence is the main reason an obviously inferior drug from a weaker small biotech company (RNA) has progressed this far, this fast. RNA did a very smart thing partnering with GSK. IMO, they knew their inferior drug and low cash they had no possible way to beat out SRPT with its superior drug. They got the cash and clinical know how and FDA savvy from GSK and managed to put lipstick on a pig.
Go to the Glaxo website and type in drisapersen in the search bar and download the pdf for phase 2 clinical results. You will see a table of results which, if read carefully, will make it quite clear how much worse drisapersen is compared with eteplirsen in efficacy and safety.
That said, if GSK/RNA phase 3 results look like their phase 2 results or worse that lipstick will not cut it and things will reverse against RNA. The fear being priced into SRPT is that the drispersen phase 3 results may look better than expected and somehow be seen as competitive with eteplirsen in efficacy or safety. I, for one, think they will be about as #$%$ as they were with the phase 2 results.
Even if you believe that Prosensa will be competitive against Etep , RNA only has a royalty rate in the "low tens" for sales of Prosensa. Contrast that w SRPT's estimate of a gross profit on Etep sales in the 80% range and the value differential is hard to rationalize. Sure, GSK is picking up all the development, manufacturing and commercialization costs of Prosensa, but with the small trial sizes and limited marketing costs, for $1B, I'd take the 80% gross profit number.
Both are difficult to explain. Why (who would) invest in a toxic kidney destroying drug that provides marginal benefits *RNA vs. a drug that enables crippled children to walk with no adverse side effects *SRPT? So how is not easy to explain because in order for RNA's mkt cap to reach SRPT levels/SRPT levels to drop to RNA levels, investors must value RNA's worth as similar to SRPT. I truly believe the market is way wrong on this one.