retinal thickening is usually a surrogate for losing vision. However, areas of retinal atrophy function poorly and if the atrophic areas thicken, vision is added. In addition, subretinal injection itself causes retinal thickening without disturbing visual function., Third, the thickness readings were were done by an unusual computer algorithm, rather than manually. The latter is being done as we speak.
I am glad you have told us that you will buy next week. Your decision will change the price significantly, given the volume you are planning on purchasing.
the shorts will also owe .288 share of Staples for each share of ODP they are short. Please short this stock so that the price will go up as soon as you discover your error.
There is about a $ 2.85 profit potential if the deal goes through. If it goes through it will be done within 6 months. That works out to about a 60% annualized profit potential on investment. If it does not go through ODP stock will drop by at least $1.. The market is therefore saying that the chances of this going through are about 1 in 8. It really does not matter to other investors what I think. I have to decide for myself whether the chances of this going through are better than 1 in 8.
The Intellectual Property and Science business of Thomson Reuters, the world's leading provider of intelligent information for businesses and professionals, recently honored Regeneron and Avalanche with the Allicense 2015 Breakthrough Award for Deals of the Year in Biopharmaceutical Licensing.
regeneron will never buy ophthotech because regn has its own PDGF inhibitor in the pipeline. On the other hand, it is 50/50 that they will buy Avalanche because it offers them different technology. Regn already has a large position in AAVL.
it is 7.25 cash plus .288 shares of SPLS. With spls @ 16, that works out to a total of 11.85. If you cannot do arithmetic, you should not be in the stockmarket.
The drug (AAV-101) will be approved in my opinion. This will Not occur earlier than late 2017 and could be as distant as late 2019. When it achieves approval, it will be worth in excess of $300/share. However, AAVL will be acquired by another larger biotech long before that.
Look at the results of the "SEVEN-UP: study. You cannot compare the Lucentis-placebo group in the AAVL 2A study to Marina and Anchor. In the latter two, those patients had never had anti-VEGF treatment--they were "treatment-naive". They were treated with monthly fixed dosing. The patients in AAVL 2A had an average of 10 prior treatments and were only given anti-VEGF as "rescue". The important point is that the AAV-101 treated group had better vision and les rescue injections.
In conference call:
1)initial measurement prior to any rx
2)measurement after AAV-1 and 2 initial anti-VEGF injection
3)measurement at 12 months.
in AAV-1 patients, all increase in thickness happened between #1 and #2.
It is remarkable how Wall Street, in its haste, has misunderstood the Phase 2A data on AVA-101. It is also sinful how the Company and CEO have failed to clarify the raw data.
1) The safety of subretinal AVA-101 has now been established.
2) Patients receiving AVA-101 required significantly less rescue injections of Lucentis than the control arm over a 12 month period.
3) Patients receiving AVA-101 had significantly better visual acuity than the control arm over a 12 month period.
4) Patients receiving AVA-101 had less loss of letters on eye chart than the control arm over a 12 month period.
5) The patients entering the study had previously received a mean of 10 Lucentis injections. This signifies a group of patients who were resistant to anti-VEGF therapy and did not have a great chance of improvement. One cannot, therefore compare
6) We do not know the criteria for "rescue injections."
7) Only one patient in the study was anti-VEGF treatment naive. This patient went into the control group.
8) Retinal thicknesses increased in the AAVL group immediately after the subretinal injection. One would expect this.
9) Given the advanced recalcitrant disease in the patients entering the study, the results were remarkably robust. Duplication of these results in a phase 3 trial would lead to the drug being FDA approved and likely also, a Nobel Prize for the scientists.
analyst commentary will take a week or more. They need to have their consultants look at data first. Financial institutions will climb on board once they understand that the data was complicated, but excellent. The company will soon be explaining the OCT data--the CEO was terrible in his comments regarding this.
The CEO was terrible on TV and terrible at the CC. The data from the study is excellent in terms of safety, vision improvement and need for rescue injections.
clinical trial results were outstanding. Wall street has it wrong. If data persists through phase 3, this drug will be approved by the FDA: improvement oif efficacy plus decrease of injection burden.
This was a group of patients who had not done well with prior therapy (10 prior injections). AAVL grouo did 11 letters better than non aavl. retinal thickening due to subretinal injection. In this case, structure did not equate to function. Better vision and decreased injections in AAVL group means efficacy in addition to safety. Can no one comprehend this?