RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Blackout on RVX: ProbablyTorpedoman, I like your numbers.
It seems to me (I'm sure obvious to all) is that a significant aspect of the perceived value of rvx-208 at this stage is the credibility of how the post hoc analysis is viewed buy potential suitors.
If potential partners or buyers view the (post hoc) results that Don presented in February at 100% certainty then obviously Don has huge negotiating power. The results on low HDL high CVD risk patients were incredible. Of course suitors won't tip their hand(s) on this.
So here are some exerpts from the February webcast:
- Slide 6 - "& clearly demonstrates that rvx-208 not only works, but it works very well". I do not have the chart he used but many of the comparisons/improvements were statistically significant at the p=.0001 level. In other words there would only be a 1 in 10,000 chance that the improvements seen are a result of pure random chance and not a treatment effect.
- Slide 9 - (within low HDL patients) - "all are statistically significant, and you do see a dose-dependence witth the 20 mg dose of Rosuvastatin and rvx-208 showing a significant regression of -2.04%".
- Slide 10 - "Crestor alone cannot produce the results that occurred in the combination with rvx-208. Our doubling of regression occurs in a quarter of the time and on a quarter of the dose".
- Slide 13 - MACE data. "totals for each of the MACE events in the ASSURE trial, with 13.8% of the placebo patients having events, versus only 7.4% of treated patients in this trial..."
- Slide 14 - "we look at the same information in comparison to low HDL intended population taking Rosuvastatin and rvx-208. And we do see a hugh difference (in Mace reduction) with a highly significant p value of .006. So it's (MACE reduction) is two to one on the overall and it's over 10 to one on Rosuvastatin (with rvx-208)".
- Slide 23 - Plague Stability - "This slide shows that in a Wilcoxin signed-ranked test (a statistical probably test) with the VH2 approach, we showed a 23% decrease in plaque vulnerability". i.e. more stable plaque.
With the statistical confidence levels seen in these findings with the low HDL high CVD group it would seem that the results are not due to random chance and in fact are probably due to the treatments.
Don indicated that moving forward there is
no value in replicating the past proven results i.e. that rvx-208 does what it was designed to do.
It seems that most people that post here (posters) believe that as well. The question is "do suitors believe it?".
If suitors believe it then the questions become:
- What is the probability that it will make it to market?
- When?
- What is the size of the market?
- How long is it protected by patents?
- What are the long term cash flow and profit projections?
The continuing and long term commitment of KD and the involvement of NGN is a very strong indication that they believe that rvx-208 works.
Anyway, I think I'm running behind the pack but just had to get my thoughts down on paper or on something and this is the something.
I think that we have yet to hear about independent validation of the HDL-P findings.
Cheers
Toinv