I am Todd Brady, President and Chief Executive Officer of Aldeyra Therapeutics. I wanna begin by thanking all of you for joining what is our first investor roundtable at Aldeyra. We are genuinely appreciative of your interest in Aldeyra, and seek to maintain an active dialogue with investors as we continue to pursue our mission of discovering and developing innovative therapies designed to treat immune-mediated and metabolic diseases. The purpose of this investor roundtable is to answer questions raised primarily by retail investors, effectively giving investors with whom we may not have regular dialogue, the chance to approach Aldeyra management directly. Given that our financial statements, other than cash balance and projected operational runway, are not, in our opinion, relevant to our business from an investment standpoint at this time, we do not hold quarterly financial calls.
We do, however, attempt to maintain a robust schedule of calls and presentations, most of which are focused on clinical data releases, which we believe are among the key value inflection events for biotechnology companies in general. In addition, we hold other calls and presentations, such as last month's Research and Development Day, designed to provide information on aspects of Aldeyra that are not commonly covered in data calls. Throughout the year, we also regularly attend investment banking meetings, such as the Jefferies Healthcare Banking Conference held earlier this month, to meet with institutional investors. For data calls and other presentations, we typically restrict questions to those from research analysts in order to facilitate the accuracy and distribution of sell-side research. At banking meetings, typically, only larger investors that are clients of investment banks are allowed to attend.
But today's call, in contrast, is for smaller investors, particularly those who may have no regular direct contact with Aldeyra management, and I hope today is the first of other investor roundtables to come. The format of the call is that questions may be submitted online. We will screen and answer questions in a manner that allows us to avoid the disclosure of material, non-public information and company proprietary information. Therefore, it may not be possible to answer all questions that are submitted. I intend to be conversational and informal on this call, but first, I'd like to mention a few important disclosures that are consistent with all of our presentations and calls.
First, this presentation and remarks which may be made during the presentation, contain forward-looking statements regarding Aldeyra, its investigational drug candidates, its plans, its expectations, opportunities, including potential or ongoing preclinical and clinical trials and studies and regulatory activities. As you all know, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, other factors that may cause Aldeyra's actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by forward-looking statements. My statements are based on the information available to Aldeyra today, and reflect our current views with respect to future events, and are based on assumptions and subject to risks and uncertainties, including the development, clinical and regulatory plans and expectations for Aldeyra's investigational drugs. There are risks that result from earlier clinical trials or portions of clinical trials that may not accurately predict the results of future trials.
Aldeyra assumes no obligation to update these statements as circumstances change. Future events and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the company's forward-looking statements, including the results of operations and financial position. Additional information concerning factors that could cause results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements are described in greater detail in the press release issued this morning and in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This morning, we issued a press release describing the outcome of the latest of our regularly occurring portfolio reviews, and have highlighted a number of developments, including the advancement of ADX-629 to the pediatric cohort of an investigator-sponsored phase II clinical trial in Sjögren-Larsson syndrome.... The advancement of novel RASP modulator ADX-743 to IND-enabling testing for obesity and hypertriglyceridemia.
The recent prioritization of ADX-248 over ADX-246 for phase 1/2 clinical testing in atopic dermatitis, and the advancement of ADX-631, another novel RASP modulator, to preclinical testing in the dry form of age-related macular degeneration and associated diseases. I'm sure we'll discuss these and other programs, including reproxalap and our orphan disease retinal program with ADX-2191 this morning, and I look forward to your questions. We have received many questions already by email, and I'm sure we'll receive additional questions, during the call. We are limited by time. The latest we'll end the call today is by 8:50 A.M. Eastern Time, and we may end the call sooner, depending on the number and detail of questions. Let's begin with the questions.
I'd like to group them in the loose order of reproxalap first, then pipeline second, corporate questions third, and then I'll wrap up with questions that we receive online, during the call. What I'll do is group questions by the most commonly asked questions. As I said, beginning with reproxalap, we've had many questions about the nature of the clinical trials being run to satisfy the complete response letter received from the FDA last year during the first NDA review. A question is: Why three trials? As we've disclosed previously, dry disease is notoriously a variable condition. The reason for that has to do with the fact that in clinical trials for dry disease, there is a vehicle effect, and what that means is when you put a substance on the eye, a liquid on the eye, the patients generally tend to feel better.
As the FDA dry eye guidance says, even water is effective. The vehicle effect is compounded by a placebo effect. Placebo effect is how the patient feels, regarding treating themselves with an eye drop, and, often even when given placebo, patients feel better. I think the combination of vehicle and placebo effects makes clinical trials difficult in dry disease. Something I don't typically talk about is the heterogeneity of dry disease. Many patients are quite different. How patients describe their symptoms may be quite different. Dry disease may be a combination of a variety of diseases along a spectrum of disease that may or may not include allergic conjunctivitis, which is another condition for which we are developing reproxalap. All in all, then, I think it makes sense to have multiple shots on goal in terms of clinical trials. We have three clinical trials, as we've disclosed.
Two of those trials are in dry eye chambers. The FDA guidance on dry eye disease, the draft guidance on dry eye disease, specifies dry eye chambers. I often liken these chambers to sitting on an airplane and flying across the country with the vents, the air vents, blowing in your face and watching a movie with your eyes open and forced visual tasking. The vents dry out your eyes. In the dry eye chamber, the primary difference is there's no humidity in the air, and so this is quite a noxious challenge for patients that suffer from dry eye disease. This is not a pleasant condition, as you might imagine. Dry eye disease is persistently disturbing, and a chamber setting, such as the one like I've described and what the FDA has specified in their guidance, is particularly interesting.
that I am aware, there are no drugs on the market today that have dry eye chamber clinical data in the label. If one of our dry eye clinical trials were to work, then reproxalap would be the first drug to have a dry eye chamber clinical trial on the label. What makes dry eye chambers even more interesting is the unit of time is minutes. In our case, dry eye chambers are 90-100 minutes, and that is a paradigm shift in terms of what's been described for activity in the clinical sections of dry eye labels. Those units of time are weeks, so drugs may present data showing activity in some number of weeks.
I was recently on a panel at ARVO this year, which is a major eye conference.... For dry eye disease, and one of the comments I made is that we, as a medical community in dry eye disease, need to shift the conversation from weeks to minutes. Patients don't care about weeks. Healthcare providers don't care about weeks. Satisfaction needs to occur sooner than weeks, and with a positive dry eye trial, we may have the opportunity to include in our label activity within minutes in a dry eye chamber. We are running a field trial. A field trial is sort of the standard clinical trial, which is a trial that's run over weeks, and patients describe their symptoms in diary format or report back to the clinical trial clinic, and report symptoms, and so forth.
I would argue that the field trial is a backup plan to the dry eye chambers. A common question I receive is: what evidence do we have to believe that the dry eye chamber is going to work? I refer investors to our call on March 28, where we announced the clinical development plan for the resubmission of a new drug application and described the chamber trial in some detail. In our corporate deck today, we have data from four previously completed dry eye chambers that suggest that reproxalap is highly statistically significantly superior to vehicle in reducing symptoms in the chamber. I thought that call was comprehensive. I thought the questions we received from the analysts were very good. If you can't get the transcript from that call, please email our investor relations group, and we'll send that to you.
We've received a question about the timeframe for NDA review. Let's suppose that one or more of the dry eye trials that we're running is positive. What's the NDA review time? Because this is a resubmission, the standard review time is six months. That's specified by the PDUFA regulations. PDUFA is Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which is approved by Congress. It's been amended. Six months is the timeframe. I have seen faster approvals for resubmissions. Typically, however, those are for so-called CMC-related complete response letters, and the CMC questions, which means that manufacturing are typically easier to answer, and thus, time frames for resubmissions could be shorter. I don't expect a shorter review period for us. We are expecting a six-month review per PDUFA guidelines.
And the reason for that is, that the FDA will have to review one or more trials, assuming one or more trials are positive, and the criteria for approval obviously depend significantly on efficacy and safety. For the NDA resubmission, some investors have asked what actually is included in that submission. Obviously, the clinical study report for the trial or trials that are completed prior to the submission will be there. We need to update our safety database. This is all very standard, and there are various, I would characterize as minor CMC updates that occur from time to time that will also be included in the submission. Some questions we've received are about, are you going to run all three trials and then submit to the NDA? Are you going to submit the first trial that works?
We have intentionally staggered the three trials such that they don't read out at the same time. If the first trial is positive, the NDA will be resubmitted with that trial. We don't intend, in that case, to complete ongoing trials. If we did complete an ongoing trial during NDA review, that trial would have to be submitted to the NDA, which could cause an extension of the PDUFA timelines. So if the first trial that works will be submitted, if there is a trial that does not work prior to the first trial working, then both of those trials would be submitted, and the NDA would review all completed trials. Optimistically, the first trial does work, the NDA submission or resubmission would include that trial, and the other trials would remain ongoing during the six-month NDA review.
We've gotten some questions about the timeline for resubmission. We've disclosed that we expect to resubmit in the second half of this year. I would reiterate those timelines. We have announced the completion of enrollment in our first chamber trial, as I said in my quote in that press release, it's quite exciting to see trials enroll quickly. In my experience, having been in clinical development for over 25 years now, when trials enroll quickly, it bodes well for the market. It suggests that there is considerable unmet need, both on the part of the patients, but also on the part of the healthcare providers that treat these patients. So absolutely thrilled to see the rapid enrollment of that trial. We were expecting about 110 patients. I believe we closed enrollment at 132.
We received questions about the special protocol assessment, and I think we dealt with that on our call in March, talking about our resubmission plan. The FDA guidance for special protocol assessment, which is a method of having a detailed response or receiving a detailed response from the FDA on a particular clinical trial, and the statistical analysis plan associated with that trial, is outlined in guidance documents. I encourage investors to read the SPA guidance. I think it is well written and informative. It turns out there are two methods to receive detailed feedback, and therefore, agreement from the FDA on certain aspects of the protocol. One is to receive an SPA agreement letter that requires a submission, a 45-day review. If there is no agreement, then there is a resubmission and another 45-day review, and so on.
I'm aware of at least one circumstance where there were seven such submissions, each with its own 45-day review. In a guidance document, there's an alternative method, which I believe often is much faster than continuing to submit protocols for an agreement letter, and that is a so-called Type A meeting with the FDA, which allows the sponsor to ask specific questions about the protocol. Those questions are answered both in preliminary comments before the meeting from the FDA, but also during the meeting. Then the preliminary comments and the meeting discussion are memorialized in the form of minutes. The latter approach is what we opted to do, as many of you know. As we've said, before, we believe we have reached agreement with the FDA on the salient aspects of the protocol. In this case, I'm referring specifically to the dry eye chamber protocol.
There are some questions about what was, what were some of the comments from the FDA regarding the first special protocol submission. We submitted originally what's known as a crossover clinical trial. I think we touched on this in the March call. A crossover trial is when, half the patients first receive drug and then at a later point, receive vehicle, and the other half of patients first receive vehicle, and then later receive drug. The primary criticism of crossover trials, which are very statistically powerful, is that if there is so-called carryover effect, the outcome of the clinical trial is difficult to interpret. Carryover effect, which you can Google, it's a very common, phenomenon in crossover trials, is when, say, a patient receives drug, does the drug remain in the patient's system, in this case, the eye, when that patient then gets a vehicle later?
You can imagine if that's the case, then it would be difficult to interpret what happens when that patient's on vehicle, if there's still drug in the patient's eye. An alternative interpretation of carryover effect is, does the patient learn something or experience something differently when the patient receives drug and then later receives vehicle? Now, there are statistical ways of dealing with carryover effect, and the best way to deal with carryover effect has to do with the so-called washout period, which is the period between, drug and vehicle or vehicle and drug, depending on how a patient is randomized. The longer the washout period, the more clinically accurate the trial, because the odds of drug and/or vehicle staying in the system over a long period of time are low. With eye drop trials, the carryover effect and washout periods are pretty standard.
We are good as human beings at getting material out of our eye. We blink, we tear, we rub, so we're not generally concerned about that. The FDA, at least as it relates to symptom trials, does not prefer a crossover trials. Thus, we modified the protocol, as we described in March and is currently in our corporate deck, such that every patient in a first chamber experience receives vehicle. And then patients are randomized, and ultimately, in a dry eye chamber, patients will receive the randomized treatment, either drug or vehicle. And statistically, in a sense, each patient is compared to his or her vehicle chamber after randomized treatment. That's important because, as I mentioned earlier in response to an investor question, dry eye disease differs from person to person.
My symptom of 90 on a scale of 0 to 100 may be another person's symptom of 10 on a scale of 0- 100. So it's important to compare, in some way, patients to themselves. Otherwise, the average is 50 on a scale of 0 to 100. And I think we've been quite unique and innovative in our trial design, and I would reiterate, based on the Type A meeting with the FDA and subsequent feedback, we believe we've reached agreement on the salient aspects of that trial. We received questions along the lines of, "Well, last time you were optimistic, this time you're optimistic. Why are you optimistic this time?
What reason do we have to believe that, the subsequent NDA submission, assuming positive clinical results, will go better? I think the key difference this time is that the FDA has asked for one more trial assessing symptoms. And as I've just been describing, we've discussed said trial in great detail with the FDA. In the first NDA submission, we submitted a large number of trials, as you know. In fact, for many, many months, we disclosed in our corporate deck exactly what we submitted to the FDA in terms of clinical trials and pivotal endpoints. And while I don't want to comment on that review process in particular, largely because we have ongoing dialogue with the FDA, I do encourage investors to go to the FDA's website and look at what's called the summary basis of approval. You can Google this.
For the dry eye drugs that are approved today, there aren't that many. Restasis was the first drug with the active ingredient cyclosporine, which is an old generic compound, originally used for organ transplant. There is Xiidra, which has been on the market for many years. There's a nasal spray, Tyrvaya, which makes people sneeze and tear. There is a new drug called MIEBO, which is sold as an artificial tear outside of the U.S. There is a new drug that contains cyclosporine. There is another drug that contains cyclosporine. All of these summary basis of approvals can be reviewed by the public. The parts to focus on, in particular, are the clinical review. In the clinical review, you can see exactly what the sponsor submitted for evidence of safety and efficacy, particularly efficacy.
There is a statistical review, and the statistical review is about, is there statistical evidence to believe that the drug is effective? Any investor can read these summary basis of approvals. I encourage investors to do that in dry eye disease. I particularly encourage investors to compare what we submitted to what is used for the basis of approval in terms of efficacy for other products. And I hope someone writes about that. I hope someone posts or writes an article about their own review of that situation. We've said in the past, and I maintain, that we submitted the largest package of trials across the largest number of clinical endpoints.
A true positive about our resubmission, as I mentioned earlier in response to an investor question, is that if a chamber trial works and if that chamber trial data is included in the drug label, in a sense, that inclusion is a paradigm shift for the reasons I mentioned, time frames in a chamber measured in minutes. Based on our discussions with patients and key opinion leaders and healthcare providers, the major unmet medical need in dry eye disease is onset. That is, how can we get patients to feel better, faster? And in today's world, that's what we all want.... We've gotten questions about the commercial landscape in the dry eye disease. I think I just covered that. The one thing I'll just reiterate is, today's time frames are in clinical labels mentioned in weeks, not anything faster. I've received a lot of questions about AbbVie.
As we have disclosed, AbbVie has an option on reproxalap. The terms of that option are described at a high level in our corporate deck. The option is an option to a co-commercialization agreement. Importantly, both the option and the co-commercialization agreement are filed with the SEC. I encourage investors to review Exhibit 10.26 in our latest 10-K, filed earlier this year. Parts of those agreements are redacted, in conjunction with SEC review, but the gist of the agreements are very clear. There's a lot of detail in those agreements. I believe, the co-commercialization agreement is over 100 pages long. The key aspects of the option, which have been disclosed, are that the option fee was $1 million upfront. There was an extension fee of another $5 million.
The upfront fee to exercise the option is $100 million less what's already been paid. Because we've been paid $1 million upfront plus the $5 million extension, the upfront fee is now $94 million. AbbVie has until 10 days after approval or the end of April next year, whichever comes sooner, to exercise the option. There's an additional milestone on approval. This is another $100 million, and then in addition to that, there are two other milestones, the total of which is an additional $200 million. As is disclosed in the exhibit on page 44 of the co-commercialization agreement, one of those milestones is a commercial and Medicare coverage milestone, and the other one is a sales-based milestone. We've gotten lots of questions about how closely are you working with AbbVie? What exactly is AbbVie doing?
I think for the details of those, you'd have to ask AbbVie, but I'll make a couple of general comments. First, the deal with AbbVie, I think is particularly exciting. I didn't know how many companies have gotten CRLs and then struck a deal like this. At a high level, I think when that happens in any biotechnology company, I think it speaks to the potential of the product. AbbVie, in particular, is interesting because, AbbVie was behind Restasis, the first dry eye drug, in a sense. As a team, invented dry eye, there were no dry eye treatments before Restasis. So you can imagine that this group is particularly skilled in the dry eye marketplace. I happen to have known, one of the key, the deal-making, professionals at AbbVie for some 15 years now.
He's a very reasonable, smart individual, and I would attribute the bulk of the co-commercialization agreement terms to him. I think, as I said previously, the deal came out wonderfully. Fingers crossed, trials work, the drug gets approved. I think Aldeyra and reproxalap are particularly well-positioned to work with AbbVie. I have been hugely impressed with that team, not only through the diligence process, but subsequent to the diligence process. You can review the terms of the option in Exhibit 10.26, and in the option, it states specifically that there are meetings that have to be held between the two companies. There is mandatory correspondence in terms of regulatory documents, and the logical conclusion from those terms is that the companies are working together, which makes sense.
It would be odd for a large company to strike a deal with a small company and take a hands-off approach. I get questions about what is AbbVie doing commercially? Again, I think those questions should be referred to AbbVie. In a general sense, for any drug that is launched, commercial preparations typically begin 18-24 months pre-launch. There's a lot that goes on in launching a drug. One is medical education. In this case, one might surmise that would involve RASP as a target, where reproxalap is the first RASP modulator that in theory could be approved. There is positioning in terms of sales and marketing. Most of the data derived from those processes involve advisory boards. There are discussions with payers, there are materials, there are logos, there is art, and 100 other things that the companies do pre-launch.
I think it would be weird to assume that any company would begin those processes 10 days after approval. Let me switch to the pipeline. This morning, we announced advancement of a variety of RASP modulators, including the introduction of two new RASP modulators, ADX-743, which is an analog of ADX-629, which is featured prominently in our RASP platform expansion over the years. ADX-629, in turn, is an analog of reproxalap. We've gotten questions about why not ADX-629? Why not take 629 forward in all these indications? A couple of answers. One is, to the extent that Aldeyra or any small company is interested in partnering molecules, it's generally good to associate a molecule with an indication, and a different molecule with a different indication, and so forth.
A specific question we received is: Are you placing your pipeline assets in individual subsidiaries? I think many companies do that these days. Biohaven, in particular, received a lot of press. But I'd like to say that that's a well-worn path in venture capital, where I spent 12 years of my life as an investment professional. That's one of the most common plays in the playbook. That is, small company has two assets, big company is interested in one of those assets, so then small company spins out the one of the assets, and big company buys the small company with a single asset. There aren't, from the public company side of things, tax-saving advantages, but there are convenience advantages for bigger companies that may or may not want to acquire other assets. So obviously, that's something that any small company is considering.
I occasionally get questions about, are we happy to spin out other assets and continue to develop our pipeline? The answer is yes, we would be thrilled to do that. As we've disclosed publicly in our last 10-K, we intend to partner commercially. My view is that small biotechnology companies are not well-positioned to commercialize. That commercialization typically is a larger company exercise, for all the reasons that I've discussed previously. And thus, as we continue to develop our pipeline, the spin-outs or new companies are something that we would be interested in doing. We also introduced new RASP modulator, ADX-631, which we hope will helm our retina development efforts. ADX-248, which is previously our retina candidate, has been advanced to our systemic clinical program in atopic dermatitis, as we described in the press release.
ADX-248 took over from ADX-246, given superior activity preclinically in atopic dermatitis, as well as superior pharmacokinetic profiles. It's important for investors to know that in terms of drug selection, nomination, and advancement, there are really two criteria that are used. One is pharmacodynamic, which relates to how active the drug is, particularly in preclinical models. The other is pharmacokinetic, which relates to how many times a day, for example, would one have to dose the drug, or what is the half-life of the drug, or what tissues are exposed to the drug and for how long. That's very important in terms of treating patients. If you have an active drug, but that drug doesn't access the site of disease, then there's no sense in taking the drug.
I think for both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic reasons, as part of a regularly occurring review process, 248 has advanced atopic dermatitis, and we expect in the second half of this year to begin phase 1 clinical testing. I get a lot of questions from investors, even institutional investors, about, "Well, how are you thinking about your pipeline?" And my answer is simple: It's skin, liver, and retina. The front of the eye, I think, is something that we've been pleased to be part of for many years. And pending success, we're happy to pass that on to AbbVie in terms of commercialization. But for development purposes, internally at Aldeyra, it's skin, liver, and retina. I think all of those are high-value areas. I think most investors would agree, and we look forward to keeping you updated on our progress along those lines.
We've got questions about when are we expecting data from the pipeline. I just mentioned 248 will initiate phase 1 testing in atopic dermatitis. We expect to initiate clinical testing in retina next year with our RASP retina program. Maybe I can take a step back and talk a little bit about RASP and retina. When this company was founded many years ago, the idea was to trap a RASP known as retinaldehyde. It's actually a form of vitamin A that is critical to the light cycle. However, when a retinaldehyde escapes from the light cycle, it is pro-inflammatory, like most RASP. But particularly interesting is that retinaldehyde binds other compounds, and in so doing, forms large, what we call macromolecules that are difficult to digest. These, in turn, accumulate in the retina.
They not only are toxic to photoreceptors, but impair the passage of light through the eye. Ultimately, these aggregates form what is known as lipofuscin, which is a greasy compound that forms what many of us know as drusen, which are retinal accumulations that feature prominently in age-related macular degeneration. We will all get age-related macular degeneration, as the name suggests, if we live long enough. The dry form of the disease has only recently had drugs approved. As I mentioned, the dry AMD is characterized by accumulations in the retina. There are no drugs approved for improvement of vision. So today, the labels for dry AMD drugs feature lesion growth. I don't know how many patients wake up in the morning thinking about lesion growth. Most patients think about how well they can see.
So one of our ideas is to initiate clinical testing in these patient populations, dry AMD or geographic atrophy, or some related condition that allows us to assess clinically relevant endpoints, which would include vision. In terms of liver, we've made great strides with ADX-629, in my opinion, in demonstrating improvement from ethanol toxicity. We are currently running a clinical trial of ADX-629 in alcoholic hepatitis. It's amazing to me that as a medical community, we have been absolutely fascinated with what was formerly called NASH, now called MASH, but really have ignored ASH. The alcoholic side of liver inflammation, I would argue, is the poor stepchild of metabolic disease these days, but it doesn't deserve to be the poor stepchild. Most of us consume ethanol.
Unfortunately, millions of us consume too much ethanol, and there is little treatment other than substance abuse programs. There are no approved drugs for ASH or, or alcoholic hepatitis. I think the second arm of our metabolic profile as our program, as we announced today, involving ADX-743, is obesity and hypertriglyceridemia. As we talked about at our R&D day this year, RASPs are intimately related to lipogenesis. In fact, to form fatty acids, you first need a fatty aldehyde, which presumably are trapped by RASP modulators. The data released today suggest that in combination with GLP-1 agonists, there's a synergistic or additive effect of RASP modulation, possibly for the reason that I just mentioned. I get questions about why in combination with GLP agonists, GLP-1 agonists.
The answer is, given the data produced to date from GLP-1 agonists, I think it would be difficult to find any patients being treated for obesity that aren't already on those drugs. The next frontier likely is going to be reducing the dose of GLP-1 agonists, which are not entirely be it benign from a safety profile, or reducing the frequency of GLP-1 agonists, which often need to be injected. And the compounds that can do that, I think, would be in high demand. Other questions we often get are: What are you doing about pain? Pain data were presented at R&D Day this year. But RASP are pro-inflammatory, and thus, RASP modulators could, in theory, represent a treatment for inflammatory pain. What is inflammatory pain? Inflammatory pain, that might be something like osteoarthritis pain, rheumatoid arthritis pain, a juvenile arthritis pain, are examples of inflammatory pain.
Those markets are huge. Obviously, because those conditions are chronic, physicians don't want to treat them with opioids or narcotics due to the addictive potential of those molecules. I think NSAIDs are commonly used. NSAIDs are also not benign from a toxicology standpoint, especially high doses, which can lead to GI ulcers and renal dysfunction. So there's always demand for novel approaches to treating pain, particularly chronic pain, and I think with RASP modulation, there is the potential for treatment of long-term inflammatory pain. We've not yet nominated a molecule for clinical testing. We're still considering the possibility of clinical testing in pain.
I think per our comments at R&D Day and per the data announced at R&D Day this year, if we were to pursue pain, you would expect us to pursue pain, an indication that is inflammatory, and osteoarthritis comes to mind. I often get questions about: How do you think about your pipeline? How do the molecules differ? I would say that we think about our pipeline in two ways. One is IP, patents. There are older drugs that are primarily analogs of reproxalap, ADX-629 is one, that are older in terms of IP, and there are newer drugs, such as the ones that we introduced today, ADX-743, ADX-631. Obviously, any drug company would pursue newer drugs, or I would say new and improved drugs, ahead of older ones, if given the choice. I think that our second-generation RASP modulators are, in theory, more potent.
They are, in theory, more pharmacokinetically advantageous, and by that I mean you might be able to administer them fewer times a day, or the half-life might be longer, or the tissue penetration might be better. So one of the things that we think about in advancing new molecules is not so much the pharmacophore or the ability of RASP modulators to bind, sequester, modulate RASP, but more pharmacokinetic profiles, and that has to do with the backbone of those molecules. As I mentioned previously, ADX-743 is an analog of ADX-629. ADX-631 is an analog of ADX-103. You can see in our press release this morning, and this is something that we've tried to do over the last several years, we've included the actual data in the release.
If you click on the Business Wire link or go to Business Wire, you can see the 5 or 6 or so graphs we released this morning with the actual data. Most of those data we've disclosed previously. We did have some new data this morning on Sjögren-Larsson syndrome, which, as many investors know, is an orphan disease, inborn error of metabolism. It's characterized by neurocognitive dysfunction and dermal dysfunction. In a cohort of adult patients, we had near normalization of metabolic profiles, particularly as they relate to lipids. Those data are in the press release this morning. 629, in conjunction with the FDA guidance, has advanced to the pediatric cohort. Typically, you'll begin in adults for safety reasons and then move to pediatrics.
I think the beauty of testing pediatric patients in Sjögren-Larsson syndrome is you have the ability, in theory, to influence the progression of disease. Often as adults, we're already afflicted to the extent that it's difficult to modify progression, but with children, that phenomenon may be less important. And that's particularly exciting for parents who today know what's gonna happen to their children and know that there's nothing to do about that. If a drug like ADX-629 could modify the progression of disease, I think that is particularly life-changing in theory. So let me get to some general corporate questions, and then I'll wrap up the call, because I know we're already over time. One question is, how do you think about the size of your company? You have few people. I'm proud of the size of our company.
I think often biotechnology companies get too large. We intend, as many of you know, to continue to pursue an outsourced model. I've already talked about commercialization and the pros and cons associated with commercialization for smaller companies. I think we've been efficient and effective at advancing reproxalap and also in terms of developing a pipeline. What programs are funded with your current cash? We've disclosed, I believe, $133 million at the end of last quarter. The programs that are in our pipeline, a new pipeline came out this morning, it's in our corporate deck, are funded at least through the current trials that are indicated, or the current preclinical development programs that are indicated in the pipeline. That involves the three trials I've mentioned for Reproxalap. It involves skin, liver, and retina, and a few other things as well.
My favorite question, which I'll hold for last, is: what are the things you wish you'd done differently? I think it's an interesting question because it allows investors to learn about the management team in a way that I don't think typically management teams talk about, and it also forces management team, myself in particular, to be introspective. The one thing I would say is that going back in time, I wish we could have done sooner, is advance our pipeline. RASP aren't just in the eye. They don't just have to do with dry eye disease or allergic conjunctivitis. This is a new platform. RASP modulators aren't just new chemical entities, RASP aren't just new targets, but the effect of modulating RASP is a new pharmacology. Every drug you've ever taken, for the most part, binds to a single protein, a receptor, an enzyme.
This is a different way of thinking about pharmacology and that there's not a single target. There's a family of targets called RASP, and as an investor pointed out the other day, and as I've said previously, I hope we can teach medical school differently. We've had lots of success targeting single proteins, but there are certainly drawbacks. Proteins aren't meant to be turned on or off exclusively, and so I'm proud to be part of what I think is a black swan approach to clinical development, representing a completely new paradigm. In the future, our children and grandchildren will not be treated with drugs that do one thing. They'll be treated with drugs that do many things, and I think RASP modulation is representative of that kind of approach. Let me quickly wrap up here.
I want to thank all the folks here at Aldeyra, Laura Nichols, David Burke, and IR, who have been helpful with this. I want to thank the investors for your questions. We're a community. We're all pulling on the same oar, and I think one benefit of all that we do is that if we're a little bit right, we get to help a lot of people. There aren't too many professions where you can make that statement. It is a pleasure for me to interact with many of you. I consider it an important part of my job, and it's one that I really enjoy. I look forward to maintaining that dialogue and, as always, updating you on our future progress. Thank you.