From: Boris Nikolic C To: "jeevacationg,gmail.com" <[email protected]> Subject: FW: FW: AAVL - we see that news came out after mkt close. Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 23:39:46 +0000 Still digging into details. This is from one of the best health care investors who put a lot of money into it. B From: on hershkovitz [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:54 AM To: Boris Nikolic; Malek, Daniel Subject: Re: FW: AAVL - we see that news came out after mkt close. Dear Boris, Here is Our Summary and analysis of the AAVL Phase2a results in wet AMD: Trial Design: Phase Ha, Randomized, Placebo-Controled, N=32, Single Blind (Outcomes Assessor), Primary end point: Safety; Secondary end points: Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); Fovea[ thickness; Decrease in rescue injections. Results: -BCVA mean change from baseline did show a significant difference of 11.5 letters between the treatment (+2.2 letters) and control (-9.3 letters) groups (95 percent CI, 2.3-20.7 letters). The 11 points VA drop between the treatment and the placebo arm is a very good result. All of the patients were pretreated and stabilized by two ranibizumab injections so they entered the trial in their "near optimal" VA. This is why I disagree with the analyst who claim that the 9 points drop of VA in placebo group is ab unusual result. What it does show, in my opinion, is that the "rescue treatment" administrated to the placebo arm was sub-optimal for maintaining their stable VA while the AVA-101 treated arm was able to maintain (and even improve ) the baseline levels of visual acuity. -More AVA-101 treated subjects improved or maintained stable vision (>-5 letters) with a low number (≤2) of rescue treatments. Specifically, 23.8 percent (treated) vs. 9.1 percent (control) maintained stable vision with ≤1 rescue injections, and a significant number of AVA-101 treated subjects (42.9 percent) improved or maintained stable vision with ≤2 rescue injections compared with subjects in the