IMO your post and bettinbigs post summarizes the g
Post# of 72446
(Total Views: 614)
Posted On: 01/20/2020 7:20:01 PM
IMO your post and bettinbigs post summarizes the gap between IPIX's need for a partner and pharmas need to to deliver new profitable products. This is precisely the gap Locust Walk is trying to fill.
IMO we know:
Brilacidin is effective in treating Ulcerative Proctitis
The pathology of UC and UP are virtually identical
The potential market for Ulcerative Colitis is enormous, > 1 million worldwide
Crohn's disease is almost as common as Ulcerative Colitis
IBD is often chronic in nature often requiring continuing treatment
Brilacidin systemic absorption is negligible
Brilacidin is unlikely to have serious systemic side effects
Current treatment for IBD is inadequate due to side effects and poor efficacy
A safe, effective, oral treatment for IBD would be very successful
What we do not know to be answered by the BDD study:
What are the pharmacokinetics of oral Brilacidin?
Can the oral BDD tablet reach proposed effective drug levels in the small and large intestines?
What we do not know to be answered in the FDA studies:
What is the most effective dose.
What is the response rate.
Will there be local side effects not discovered in the UP study
Could other indications be studied ,IBS for example
IMO Oral Brilacidin, if effective for IBD would be the widely prescribed due to its safety when compared to alternative oral and systemic treatments for IBD. IMO it would be a first line treatment for patients. It may prove to be a treatment for the enormous IBS market
The question is when will Locust Walk bridge the gap between what IPIX thinks Brillacidin is worth and what the pharma companies gauge as fair value.
I agree with you pharma will wait until after the successful completion of the BDD trials.
Their risk is if they decide to wait until the early to mid to FDA and EU trials someone else will come in and secure the rights And since AS has secured the RFR and the RFN it will drive the price higher.I could be wrong but I do not think AS will have the resources to buy the entire Brilacidin GI indications.
GLTA Farrell
All the above is IMO only and may prove to be wrong.
IMO we know:
Brilacidin is effective in treating Ulcerative Proctitis
The pathology of UC and UP are virtually identical
The potential market for Ulcerative Colitis is enormous, > 1 million worldwide
Crohn's disease is almost as common as Ulcerative Colitis
IBD is often chronic in nature often requiring continuing treatment
Brilacidin systemic absorption is negligible
Brilacidin is unlikely to have serious systemic side effects
Current treatment for IBD is inadequate due to side effects and poor efficacy
A safe, effective, oral treatment for IBD would be very successful
What we do not know to be answered by the BDD study:
What are the pharmacokinetics of oral Brilacidin?
Can the oral BDD tablet reach proposed effective drug levels in the small and large intestines?
What we do not know to be answered in the FDA studies:
What is the most effective dose.
What is the response rate.
Will there be local side effects not discovered in the UP study
Could other indications be studied ,IBS for example
IMO Oral Brilacidin, if effective for IBD would be the widely prescribed due to its safety when compared to alternative oral and systemic treatments for IBD. IMO it would be a first line treatment for patients. It may prove to be a treatment for the enormous IBS market
The question is when will Locust Walk bridge the gap between what IPIX thinks Brillacidin is worth and what the pharma companies gauge as fair value.
I agree with you pharma will wait until after the successful completion of the BDD trials.
Their risk is if they decide to wait until the early to mid to FDA and EU trials someone else will come in and secure the rights And since AS has secured the RFR and the RFN it will drive the price higher.I could be wrong but I do not think AS will have the resources to buy the entire Brilacidin GI indications.
GLTA Farrell
All the above is IMO only and may prove to be wrong.
(12)
(2)