At the risk of insulting your intelligence/knowledge . . . as to point #3, the trial was fairly small n, so there is still risk of a safety signal in a larger trial. Having room to reduce dose is a good thing to have in these circumstances. The lack of difference in blood pressure is interesting, given MDGL's results on that metric. It was thought to be an indirect result of overall benefit, not a direct result. Given that what we can see of VKTX' data looks just as good as MDGL's in terms of overall benefit, why didn't we see that? Trial not long enough, most likely. I'd expect a longer trial with similar results to start showing a blood pressure decrease, and I'd even expect that with a dose reduction.
They'll need biopsy data and longer treatment for their next trial, whatever they call it (P2b or P2/3), so they're still well behind MDGL, and current difference in MC still justified.
I'm not up to speed on their cash position, but these are the circumstances under which a company typically raises money. Since they have a number of programs to fund, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Do they have a shelf in place? Alternatively, they could partner. I don't know if they've discussed their partnering strategy.
Cheers, Tuck |
