Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message| ()  

Executives

Karen Peterson - Corporate Communications Specialist

Bob Butchofsky - President & CEO

Suzanne Cadden - SVP, Development

Artur Cideciyan - Research Professor of Ophthalmology, Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania

Alan Bird - Emeritus Professor at London University, Honorary Consultant, Moorfields Eye Hospital

Rob Koenekoop - McGill University Health Centre, Montreal

Hendrik Scholl - Professor of Ophthalmology at Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

Ava Bittner - Lions Vision Center, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

Analysts

Scott Henry - Roth Capital

Jason Aryeh - JALAA Equities

QLT Inc. (QLTI) QLT091001 Presentation at ARVO Call May 10, 2012 11:30 AM ET

Operator

Hello. This is the Chorus Call Conference operator. Welcome to the QLT, Inc. conference call and webcast. As a reminder, all participants are in a listen-only mode and the conference is being recorded. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. (Operator Instructions)

At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Karen Peterson, Investor Relations Specialist. Please go ahead.

Karen Peterson

Good morning everyone, and welcome to QLT’s conference call to discuss the data from QLT’s Phase 1b trial of QLT091001 in subjects with RP that was presented earlier today at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2012 Annual Meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The conference call is being webcast live and will be available on our website for the next 30 days.

Before I turn the call over to Bob Butchofsky, QLT’s President and CEO, I would like to take a few moments to go over the Safe Harbor statement.

On behalf of the speakers who follow, we caution investors that certain statements in this conference call are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the US Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and constitute forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian Securities Laws.

For the purposes of this caution, we refer to such statements as forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are predictions, only which involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. Certain material factors or assumptions are applied in making forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements.

For additional information about the material factors or assumptions underlying such statements and about the material factors that may cause actual results to vary from those expressed or implied in such statements, please consult QLT’s press releases dated March 1st and May 3, 2012 and available on our website as well as filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Canadian Securities Regulatory Authorities, including its risk factors detailed in the most recently filed annual report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. QLT undertakes no obligation to update such information to reflect later events or developments, except as required by law.

Please note that the views of the investigators in the trials expressed during this conference call are their own personal views and do not necessarily represent the views of QLT. QLT expressively disclaims any liability with respect to the views, opinions or belief expressed by these speakers.

And with that I will turn the call over to Bob.

Bob Butchofsky

All right, thanks a lot, Karen and welcome everyone. We are speaking to you this morning from the ARVO Meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

We have assembled a panel of distinguished team leaders in the field are joining Suzanne Cadden, Senior Vice President of Development with OLT and myself today. Dr. Artur Cideciyan, who presented results, the initial preliminary results on the RP study earlier this morning and he is going to walk through for you in a moment. The same presentation he gave at the meeting. Art is a Research Professor of Ophthalmology at the Scheie Eye Institute, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Also on the panel today is Dr. Alan Bird and we’re familiar with Dr. Bird he was at our R&D day in December. He is Emeritus Professor at London University and Honorary Consultant at Moorfields Eye Institute in London.

Also joining us is Dr. Rob Koenekoop, who many of you know is the investigator in LCA study. Rob is an Associate Professor of Ophthalmology at McGill University and Chief of Pediatric Ophthalmology at Montreal Children’s Hospital in Montreal.

And then a new voice today that we’ll be joining us is Dr. Hendrik Scholl. Hendrik is Professor of Ophthalmology Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

So with that, we will go through Dr. Artur Cideciyan’s presentation and we’ll open up the call for Q&A. Art, please take away.

Artur Cideciyan

Thank you and good morning. I’ll go ahead and start with the second slide. Funding for this clinical trial is provided by QLT, Inc. The research took place at seven different international centers, involved a multitude of investigators some of them are listed on this slide.

Slide seven; inherited retinopathies refer to defect in more than 200 genes that are currently known to result in dysfunction, degeneration or maldevelopment of photoreceptors in the RP; often there are multiple components to such defects. For example, a biochemical dysfunction can be followed by a progressive degeneration. Specific treatment strategies can be directed to one or more of these components.

Slide eight; both of the retinas contain two types of image forming photoreceptor cells, RODS shown schematically on the left and CONES on the right. For normal functioning ROD and CONE photoreceptor cells require a continuous supply of light sensitive chromophore 11-cis-retinal in order to detect light arriving from the environment and provide vision.

At least two visual cycles are thought to normally provide this chromophore. The best study economical or classical visual cycle takes place in the RP and ROD and Cone photoreceptor outer segments and it synthesis de novo 11-cis-retinal from all-trans-retinyl either stored within the RP or recycled from the photoreceptors or arriving from the systemic circulation.

Rest understood is the retinal alternative visual cycle which is thought to occur among CONE photoreceptors and Müller cells. The long sought retinal isomerase for this alternative cycle was just reported by Gabe Travis and colleagues at Iowa.

Slide nine; key importance to my presentation today are the two enzymes of conical visual cycle LRAT hydrolases all-trans-retinyl to all-trans-retinyl ester and RPE65 users all-trans-retinyl ester as a substrate to produce 11-cis-retinal. Lack of either enzyme severely limits the production of the visual chromophore and causes a severe early on retinopathy.

Now slide nine; the better studied one of the two genetic diseases is the RPE65 disease by using (inaudible) measures of retinal structure and visual function, we have previously demonstrated that human patients with RPE65 mutation have a complex retinal disease. In patients with RPE65 mutations, visual function loss is caused by a combination of a biochemical blockade of the retinoid cycle and degeneration of the retinal photoreceptors. The biochemical blockage component of this retinopathy can be treated by two approaches. One approach, shown on the right, is to use gene augmentation therapy to insert a functional enzyme.

This approach has resulted in several independent clinical trials, and much of the results from our group as well as others have been published. Another approach shown on the left is to use 9-cis-retinoids to bypass the normal visual cycle reactions. [Chris Palczewski] and our group demonstrated this bypass in RPE65 knockout mice more than a decade ago. Next, I would like to present some of the results from this bypass approach in human patients.

Upon formal ingestion, QLT091001 or 9-cis-retinal acetate is hypothesized to enter from the bloodstream mostly as 9-cis-retinal, which is taken up the RPE. Partially inserted into the canonical RPE visual cycle, 9-cis-retinal is oxidized by RDH5 or other retinol dehydrogenases. The resulting 9-cis-retinal is transported for the receptor outer segments to form an alternative visual pigment called isorhodopsin.

Isorhodopsin is not very different than the native rhodopsin, except for lower light sensitivity and a 10 nanometer or so hypsochromic shift to shorter wavelengths. Based on this hypothesis, QLT sponsored a multi-center, open-label Phase 1b clinical trial involving seven international study sites, up to 20 patients with early-onset and severe forms of Retinitis Pigmentosa caused by RPE65 or LRAT mutations could be enrolled if they met inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The treatment was a single seven day course of oral treatment with QLT091001 at the dose of 40 milligrams per meter square per day. Visual function parameters measured included best-corrected ETDRS visual acuity, Goldmann kinetic visual field and electroretinograms. In separate sub-studies, dark-adapted perimetry, full-field sensitivity, pupillometry and functional magnetic resonance imaging were also performed.

Systemic safety was assessed with vital signs, electrocardiogram, physical exams, urine and blood samples. Ocular safety was evaluated with a clinical eye examination, including slit-lamp biomicroscopy, indirect ophthalmoscopy and applanation tonometry. Well, here is a table showing baseline characteristics of the 17 patient’s enrolled to-date. Age averaged 28 years with a range from 6 to 55 years. There were more males than females.

Most of the patients had RPE65 mutations, and most of the patients were either white or Asian. The Goldmann kinetic visual field extent averaged near 1.7 log millimeter squared, but showed a wide range. Visual acuities averaged around 30 ETDRS letters, corresponding to its known acuity of 2,200 but showed a large range among eyes from zero to 71 letters. Goldmann kinetic visual fields with several target sizes were recorded and quantified by inverting the distortions due to cardiographic projection and the mismatch between retinal and perimetric curvatures.

A single stimulus was chosen and analyzed with multi-level, mixed effect linear model. The graph shows the percent change in visual field area relative to baseline at days 7, 14 and 30. Error bars are one standard error. Red lines and symbols show the results considering all 17 patients. On average, there is a statistically significant peak of 24% improvement at day 7, followed by smaller improvements at days 14 and 30. Blue lines and symbols show the subset of results from 14 evaluable patients.

There is a similar pattern of a peak at day 7, followed by smaller improvements at days 14 and 30. These graphs show the proportion of responding eyes which was defined as 20% or greater improvement in visual field area, both with intent-to-treat analysis, as well as the evaluable subset. About half the eyes showed improvement at/above the 20% cut-off. This graph is another breakdown of the visual field responders with the same 20% cut-off on consecutive business.

35% of the patients show that visual field improvement in both eyes and 47% in at least one eye. Next are the visual acuity results presented at the mean change in ETDRS letters read as a function of time. Error bars are one standard error a gay. Results from old subjects represented with the red symbols and line show a mean improvement of three letters at day 7, four letters at day 14, and three letters at day 30.

Evaluable subset of patients represented with the blue symbols and lines show a similar pattern with a peak approaching five letter improvement occurring at day 14. Visual acuity response was defined as an improvement of five or greater letters. With this definition, 25% to 30% of the eyes were responders at day 7, and about 40% of the eyes could be considered responders at days 14 and 30.

And during the time period up to day 30, at least one eye of the majority of the subjects showed five or more ETDRS letter improvement. To better understand the effects of the oral 9-cis-retinid on retinal function, two patients enrolled at the Scheie Eye Institute site were examined with specialized tests of visual function. Both the patients had RPE65 mutations. One was a 40-year-old man and the other a 24-year-old woman.

One of the tests of visual function we used was dark-adapted computerized static perimetry shown on the right. And this is like a physical testing method that only one location is distributed across the full extent of the visual field are sampled with a wide range of stimulus intensities to determine the spatial distribution of light sensitivity across the retina. The results were dramatic.

Within days of the first dose, both eyes of both the patients showed sensitivity increases averaging 12dB, which equates to 16-fold improvement. These increases could be detectable at loci representing up to half of the visual field tested. Other tests of vision, including full-field sensitivity testing and pupillometry confirmed the perimetric results.

Slide 20, next, we used our extensive previous experience in 15 RP65 patients undergoing gene augmentation therapy. In all those patients before treatment, waiting for an extended period of dark adaption, has not changed their sensitivity. But after gene therapy, a long period of adaption resulted in substantial increases in dark-adapted sensitivity measured. Therefore, in our two patients within the current QLT trial, we also tested their vision after an expanded period of dark-adaption.

Within this both the sort of baseline and near the end of the short dose course of treatment either on day five or six. The 24-year-old patient had a full field of vision at baseline with sensitivity values averaging about 20dB. Normal values for these acromatic stimuli are about 70dB, thus she showed a large 50dB loss of sensitivity, typical for the RP65 disease.

Near the end of the course of the oral 9-cis-retinal treatment where sensitivities were averaging about 40dB, and thus demonstrating a dramatic improvement of 19dB or 20dB across 83% of the retinal area. The 40-year-old patient had mostly a peripheral field of vision detectable with sensitivity values averaging about 5dB and thus displaying a greater severity of disease at baseline. Near the end of course, of the oral 9-cis-retinyl treatment, is sensitivities in the peripheral regions corresponding to about 40% of the retinal area were improved by 16dB on average. The individual retinal location's peak increases in sensitivity could range up to 24 to 36dB in the core eye evaluated.

We will reference 36dB which corresponds to a 4000-fold improvement in light sensitivity is substantially higher than the 8dB corresponding on the 99% test [receptor] ability previously determined and published in a cohort of RPE65 patients. The functional MRI which is another specialized visual function test was performed in two subjects enrolled at the McGill university site. Here are the results from one of the subjects that showed an improvement for visual acuity, but not for Goldmann visual field.

The base line shown on the left, there was cortical activation only for the highest contrast target and not to intermediate and low contrast targets. Where the day 11 shown on the right the patient showed cortical activation for both the intermediate and the high contrast targets.

In terms of safety the most frequently reported adverse event was headache which resolved by the end of the 7-day treatment period. The rest of the adverse event are listed here and they were consistent with the LCA cohort data that was previously presented. There were elevated ALT and AST values decreased HDL that will mostly resolve within one week. There were also elevated triglycerides, photophobia and nausea reported.

So in summary there was a modest but statistically significant improvement of the average Goldmann visual field area by 22% at day 7 with an intent to treat analysis of all enrolled patients. In a valuable subset of 14 patients the average visual field area enlargement was somewhat higher at 34% by day 7 and 29% by day 14. Our visual acuity improvement averaging about five letters this occurred in at least one eye or 65% of subjects during the first month.

In both eyes of two patients who were examined with dark-adapted method at the Scheie Eye Institute, there was profound improvement of up to 36dD or 4000 fold or 400,000% if you will in visual sensitivity within days of starting the dosing. This gigantic change links incontrovertibly 9-cis-retinyl acetate ingestion at the current dose through a biological effect in the retinas of patients with RPE65 mutations. This new found function however show that substantially prolonged kinetics of dark adaptation. There was a significant fRMI improvement in one of the two patients tested and the safety profile was acceptable. Thank you for your attention.

Bob Butchofsky

Thank you very much. It was even better the second time today than the first time if that's possible. Brock if you would mind could you open up the line for questions.

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) Our first question today comes from Scott Henry of Roth Capital. Please go ahead.

Scott Henry - Roth Capital

I guess for starters I was noticing in one of the slides that the exclusion criteria between evaluable, patients that can be evaluated and those that cannot with change in operator, can you kind of tell me what that means and how that is a challenge and why it's excluded?

Bob Butchofsky

Maybe Suzanne you want to address the first part and then we can ask the connections about what actually happened.

Suzanne Cadden

In order to have a more defined treatment signal, what we looked at was certainly certain criteria ahead of time in terms of, before we actually outlined the data and some of the criteria that's very important in doing the visual field analysis is to at least have the same operator who does your baseline assessments and also be the same operator for a subsequent test point. And so in some cases it can be challenging for sites to ensure that if there is illness or sickness on the part of an operator. In some cases there did need to be a switch. So there were a few cases where that data was excluded so that we could more appropriately in an evaluable data evaluate the treatment effects.

Bob Butchofsky

I think obviously Scott that was more of an issue in the LCA study because of a longer term follow up. I think there was only one patient that was excluded in the RP analysis based on a different examiner did follow up versus the baseline.

Scott Henry - Roth Capital

Okay. And is that standard protocol for a trial like that if you switch operator, operators. I mean given the small amount of patients we have here, it seems like that wouldn’t happen a lot. I mean, it seems like every patient matters and but is that the typical protocol to exclude if the operator changes?

Bob Butchofsky

Yes. It is and again this is the proof of concept study where we are looking to find information on a drug effect and so you are looking to enhance the signal. This is just a practical reality of the clinical studies where people do get sick, they can't make it in to do the assessments. But it is something that prospectively you do any studies.

Scott Henry - Roth Capital

And then I guess this is a question for the panel, because this trial was done versus baseline without a placebo, I mean, can you talk a little bit about you know do you ever see a placebo response in trial like this I mean obviously the placebo is not doing anything actively but there could be operator error in terms of you know wanting people to get better and just misinterpreting the data unintentionally. I mean is there any kind of way to think about what a placebo response would look like in a situation like this?

Artur Cideciyan

It's a very important question. So in a placebo situation clearly these are patients who want to get better and they will show some tendency to try to do better. The size of the effect is usually what will separate and what is possible in terms of just some intention of trying to do better versus something that is just very large and that you would not be able to expect to have such a visual function improvement just because the patient is trying to want to do better.

Unidentified Company Representative

I agree completely with Dr. Cideciyan. I just wanted to add that we're obviously for those of us who see children and adults with these diseases everyday and to Goldmann visual fields and visual vision testing almost everyday. We are very aware of the placebo effect in learning and that’s why we have several methods put into place in the trial where we tried to eliminate it. One of them is that we only allow patients into the trial that know how to do these tests. And so we have some very good baseline information about them where they are beginning of the trial. We also have specific instructions with the technicians who do these tests and finally there is something in the results that can teach us about the placebo effect. And that is very often our results are symmetrical and it is very difficult for a child or a young adult or patient with RP to have symmetrical improvement on visual field.

Do you have any thing to add?

Suzanne Cadden

I just want to add an additional comment and I just want to think that we look out here and of course are planning to go into placebo controlled trial for the (inaudible) program. But what I think has been very gratifying for us is seeing the diverse range of improvements across a range of endpoints.

So for example the data that seems today from the Scheie Eye Institute as well as visual field data, visual acuity data as well as from the patient’s projective report both in the LP and RP cohort.

So in terms of regulatory approvals what regulators look at is the way at not certainly having approached this study and for future studies as well, but certainly it’s been very compelling information presented today as well as the information collected previously. So that would suggest that the placebo effects are enormous driving results here at this point in time.

Bob Butchofsky

I think we covered that one, why don’t we….

Scott Henry - Roth Capital

And if I can ask one final question, I am in the investment community and my sense is people still haven’t really gravitated to this drug in terms of understanding it, in terms of it becoming a widespread pipeline product moving towards I guess the market.

My question for the panel would be having just went ARVO, relative to a year ago how is the profile of this molecule increased; I mean was there a lot of traffic in the presentation, are people that make their living in this field focusing on this molecule; what kind of profile has it adapted over the past I would say six months?

Bob Butchofsky

Rob?

Rob Koenekoop

Well, there is a tremendous amount of excitement about this drug and our role and about the results. And I was here last year and the year before and so as far as I can tell there is an increased awareness, an increased excitement about the drug because what has happened now is that the drug was first tested in Montreal and now we've tested the drug by world leading experts that have joined us in seven different centers. So I think that the awareness is increasing for very good reason. Anyone else, Dr. Bird?

Alan Bird

I will just add that I think that at least I can talk within the profession. There is a lot of enthusiasm for this approach for a variety of reasons. One is the scientific base, it’s really solid. Secondly, it’s a reasonably simple treatment and as other forms of, any other form of therapy which is very complex. And the results, the benefits are seen within a very short time, so it makes it a highly practical approach to this problem. And I think that's recognized throughout the profession and at Moorfields we are very keen to take part in this trial for all these reasons.

Bob Butchofsky

Just from my perspective, last year Rob presented data in a relatively small meeting room. He made two presentations earlier this week that literally has standing [remotely] and during Dr. Cideciyan’s presentation today even though it’s the last day of the meeting but it’s still very well attended. So there were literally hundreds of people here at the meeting that got exposed to this data this week. Thanks for all your questions Scott.

Operator

The next question comes from Steven (inaudible). Please go ahead.

Unidentified Analyst

I just had some sort of maybe more a quality of life anecdotal questions. On the Photophobia maybe if someone could describe that that was problematic that required the drug being stopped or not being restarted; was it a quality of life issue and maybe if you can talk about maybe making these numerical metrics sort of giving us a flavor of what they mean for the patients in their quality of life? Thanks.

Bob Butchofsky

Dr. Scholl?

Hendrik Scholl

That's an excellent question. I believe that we alluded the fact that in theory you increase (inaudible) too light in these patients and they could become more photophobic. But that's not the case; at least its not known in our experience. They increase it to be more sensitive and as Dr. Cideciyan showed, the effect is more in the ROD and in the CONE system, so we have not observed patients become more photophobic. We have not specifically observed that they become less photophobic although the lesser is conceivable.

Bob Butchofsky

Dr. Cideciyan anything to add?

Artur Cideciyan

Well, in terms of the size of the response as I can, in terms of the (inaudible) results that I showed which is the situation where it would be relevant in dim light conditions; it is probably important to remember that many of these patients in very bright lit situations have quite reasonable mobility, whereas when the light levels drop, they become completely blind and cannot move.

And so therefore any changes in terms of their ability to see in dim light conditions will affect their -- presumably will affect their lives in more dim light conditions.

Operator

(Operator Instructions) The next question comes from Jason Aryeh of JALAA Equities. Please go ahead.

Jason Aryeh - JALAA Equities

Hey guys, congrats on the good data. Couple questions related to the AEs. Is increase in headache, is that an issue of photophobia? Is that kind of indicative of efficacy of the drug that because they're starting to see light that's going to cause a headache?

Bob Butchofsky

Like Doppler CT scan?

Artur Cideciyan

Well, certainly there seemed to be a relationship between the headache coming on in our limited experience of the two patients, the headache coming on and within hours increase in visual sensitivities. So I would say that there is a -- again, in the limited number that we have seen personally, there appeared to be a direct correlation of the headache and the visual improvement. So it would be reasonable to assume that they are linked.

Jason Aryeh - JALAA Equities

Others, have you had different experiences? Rob, you've treated most of these patients, what's been your experience with that?

Rob Koenekoop

I agree with Dr. Cideciyan. Again, there are patients though that don't have headaches. The thing is that we're still looking into this. Obviously, vitamin A can have headache due to the hypervitaminosis. But I think that we should look more carefully at the correlation between the recovery of vision and the increased blood flow that we've shown on FMRI, and the increased uptake of oxygen causing headache.

Jason Aryeh - JALAA Equities

Dr. Scholl?

Hendrik Scholl

To add that, it remains speculation if the headache is related to an improvement in vision because we see a prolonged effect between for one week, every day in, and the headache typically leveled off after a day or so. So that was pretty uniform observation that we made. So short-term headache, longer term visual improvement.

Suzanne Cadden

I'll just echo back on in terms of Dr. Scholl's comments. We have other data from other studies which does show headache, which of course is associated with vitamin A and can be, but photophobia is not. And certainly what we did see is the photophobia did seem to be related to patients noting increased sensitivity to light. So photophobia and headache do not necessarily track together. So it senses that it may be indicative of potential therapeutic effect.

Jason Aryeh - JALAA Equities

How have you guys managed the headaches when they've occurred in patients? Has it required any special treatment or anything worth mentioning here?

Rob Koenekoop

They were pretty easy to treat in Montreal. We've sometimes used Tylenol or Advil. Usually honestly, we don't do anything.

Jason Aryeh - JALAA Equities

So nothing really out of the ordinary, Dr. Bird?

Alan Bird

I think we've just passed the general, almost philosophical question, is if the brain gets information that it hasn't been receiving for a long time, how does it respond to that? And that kind of debate has been going on in a variety for therapies for very severe visual loss, without anyone really knowing what the answers are.

Jason Aryeh - JALAA Equities

And I guess as a follow-up, Bob, we obviously treated healthy patients with drug as well, was there an increase in headaches seen in healthy volunteers?

Suzanne Cadden

In general, we do see headaches as a consistent and known side-effect of taking vitamin A. We also saw photophobia, which is not side-effect of vitamin A. And so, there was a tremendous consistency with the patient data.

Jason Aryeh - JALAA Equities

And I would assume that the latter, the photophobia would be indicative of efficacy, frankly, in these healthy volunteers?

Suzanne Cadden

So that's what we'd like to think and building on Alan's comment, it's certainly something that we don't know how the brain responds from these increased retinal sensitivity changes. But that's the theory at the present time.

Jason Aryeh - JALAA Equities

Great. And then, my last question on the other the elevation of ALT and AHT in decreased HDL, all of which resolved within a week. Is it a week? Do they resolve within a week because they go off drug, or is it resolved within a week if they stayed on drug?

Suzanne Cadden

That's a good question. We have longer-term data that we're analyzing right now. But again, it's a very good safety profile. We've been quite gratified with what we've seen.

Jason Aryeh - JALAA Equities

Great. And I'm sorry, one last thing. I would assume that given the severity of the condition that the side-effects like headache and nausea and photophobia that the patients actually feel the side-effects of, none of them would cause a patient to not want to be on drug. Is that a fair assumption?

Bob Butchofsky

If you have patients that don't view this in a positive risk reward kind of scenario?

Artur Cideciyan

No, our both patients have shown interest in for the retreatment arm of the trial. So it's presumably they're fine with it.

Bob Butchofsky

That was Dr. Cideciyan. Anyone else? Dr. Scholl?

Hendrik Scholl

I completely agree with that statement. So our patient had quite severe headache, but that's what he told us. Although then with just one Tylenol it went away. And when we recently asked him about the headache that may come again when he participated in the retreatment protocol, he obviously forgot about it. So he's extremely keen on participating in the retreatment and apparently the headache is not a big issue.

Bob Butchofsky

Dr. Koenekoop?

Rob Koenekoop

So I've asked that specific question to the 20 patients that have come to Montreal from a 10-year-old to 32-year-old, and they all want to come back. That's a good bottom line, I would say.

Operator

There are no further questions at this time. I'll hand the call back over for any closing comments.

Bob Butchofsky

What are kind of the big takeaways from this data Dr. Cideciyan, in your opinion? Doctor, how do you kind of stack this data up and what are your overall thoughts with that moving forward?

Artur Cideciyan

So, I guess basically we were very interested in seeing the time course of improvement, and it seems like it's a matter of hours to days within the start of treatment that there is a very large improvement in the specialized sensitivity measures that we made. We were very surprised to find that. But to us that means that there is a direct connection of so-called photon catch, meaning that there is a better ability of the retina to catch light compared to its baseline situations, which is exactly what we'd expect from the preclinical studies and that is happening in at least in our experience in the two patients that we have seen in both of their eyes. So we were very, very excited to see that and we look forward to determining further aspects of this vision improvement and how it varies across the retina and the details of this response.

Rob Koenekoop

So mechanistically you are seeing a response that really adds up with the pre-clinical data. At least so far, the side effect profile seems to be relatively manageable. It’s not completely benign obviously but it looks like the things we are seeing, appear to be readily managed. Dr. Scholl where are you on kind of the excitement level and what does all this really mean?

Hendrik Scholl

I mean as a clinician seeing these patients for many years and not being in the position to offer them a pill that would make things better. I am extremely excited and this feeling is shared by many of other colleagues that are participating in the trial but are very much looking forward to this drug being developed and becoming available for patients and it's quite an excitement on the side of the patient, not of individual patients but for example in the patient or organizations like Foundation Fighting Blindness or in Germany Pro Retina or Retina International. So there is a little bit excitement and I think that they will justify it because this is a promising treatment and it deserves further development.

Bob Butchofsky

When you look at, we have two programs ongoing in the LCA patient population and RP patient populations, how would you kind of compare and contrast the data and Dr. Koenekoop, you are probably in the best position to do that, what are your thoughts between the two different study results that we have demonstrated thus far.

Unidentified Company Representative

Well first of all it’s extremely gratifying for me to see that when an international panel of experts joined the group and they’ve confirmed that some of the findings that we made in Montreal of last year and then with further deeper probing of the retinal sensitivity and the visual function in the visual cortex that we are also seeing objective improvements due to the treatments. So that’s number one. Number two is that the comparison is obviously a little bit difficult. The numbers are still small, there is 14 LCA patients in one trial, in one center and then 17 patients in seven centers and there is a lot of variability and mutation severity and ages and for instance the age of the patients in Montreal was 10 years lower on average than the patients in our key. But I think that I am very encouraged by the fact that despite all the variability and the fact that they are older, the RP cohort, the drug is clearly working in the RP cohort as well.

Bob Butchofsky

And Dr. Bittner, maybe you could give us a little bit background on RP and your thoughts a well.

Ava Bittner

We have had clinics devoted to inherited retinal diseases since 1972. So it's 40 years, we’ve been seeing patients and the best we could do to get some advise on the risk and how life was going to be and we would desperately it was very difficult not have any kind of therapeutic approach and over the last few years we've development of therapy and I think that's been very encouraging for everyone seeing that therapy development. The attraction of this particular approach is clearly is simplicity plus the speed with which the benefits is evident and what I found most and a lot of the early experience was to some extent anecdotal and was some functional testing to support the apparent benefit but now we see the magnitude of the change which has been shown by Dr. Cideciyan I mean that is just extraordinary and it's really very, very encouraging and I would see this kind of – I'd love to see this kind of therapeutic approach expanded and certainly I think there is lot more work to do and it does need placebo controlled trial of some sort, but any results to date are really encouraging both for physicians and for patient population.

Bob Butchofsky

Brock you want to open it one more time to see if that generated any other questions.

Operator

(Operator Instructions).

Bob Butchofsky

Okay follow up or any other issues that you guys would like to highlight before we close the call today. Alright, then I want to thank all the panel members in particular Dr. Cideciyan, great presentation. We very much appreciate it. Thank you all for taking the time today. Thanks again. Bye, bye.

Operator

Ladies and gentlemen this concludes today’s conference call. You may disconnect your telephones. Thank you for joining and have a pleasant day.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: QLT's CEO Discusses QLT091001 Presentation at ARVO (Transcript)
This Transcript
All Transcripts