Condensing our trials is just smart business. But
Post# of 154635
(Total Views: 505)
Posted On: 09/30/2022 1:20:06 PM
Condensing our trials is just smart business. But is it really? Time is money and continuing smaller cheaper trials by a biotech that usually have not only a smaller amount of patients but shorter timelines to trial just a phase 1 or phase 2 trials in other secondary indications while they are cheap and fast to do. Once you reach a first approval of any kind all trials are much bigger and take longer by design by who? The FDA will make us perform bigger longer trial times. Doing the first 1-2 phases just realizes much more value much quicker once an approval like HIV Combo does happen. Since those phase 2’s will sit and wait for revenue to be completed with a phase 3 trial after revenue. This is kind of important when your timeline for future approvals is very much increased and showing the ability to still become a large platform drug is of great importance
Having multiple completed phase 2 trials sitting is money in the bank (with great results of coarse). Showing all your possibilities for future approvals is what makes us a platform drug candidate. It increases our total value for us with a possible partner and possible buy-outs.
So I say… is it really smarter now to stop the cheaper smaller patient trials afforded us as biotechs that are allowed to do? Or should we continue only to phase 2 and let the results simmer as we continue aggressively the big money Nash and oncology and HIV results for phase 3 results?
I believe we should continue the MS and stroke and maybe other smaller indication in just phase 1-2 trials and base them on value returned for becoming a platform drug. It just seems like the right thing to do while everything is much quicker and smaller trials in size and time are in our favor. Proving them in much bigger phase 3’s when we have the revenue to do it. Being able to use revenue from an approval to complete the more expensive larger phase 3 trials will be easier with an future HIV or FDA approval of some kind is generating us some revenue.
Having multiple completed phase 2 trials sitting is money in the bank (with great results of coarse). Showing all your possibilities for future approvals is what makes us a platform drug candidate. It increases our total value for us with a possible partner and possible buy-outs.
So I say… is it really smarter now to stop the cheaper smaller patient trials afforded us as biotechs that are allowed to do? Or should we continue only to phase 2 and let the results simmer as we continue aggressively the big money Nash and oncology and HIV results for phase 3 results?
I believe we should continue the MS and stroke and maybe other smaller indication in just phase 1-2 trials and base them on value returned for becoming a platform drug. It just seems like the right thing to do while everything is much quicker and smaller trials in size and time are in our favor. Proving them in much bigger phase 3’s when we have the revenue to do it. Being able to use revenue from an approval to complete the more expensive larger phase 3 trials will be easier with an future HIV or FDA approval of some kind is generating us some revenue.
(3)
(0)