DrJan
14 hours ago
Another claim again, ‘complimentary to the Mabs’ without any clinical data to support it. A theoretical idea that probably came up after a German beer, in addition to ‘precision medicine’. They probably didn’t think it through and never tested the concept. Such claims without supporting evidence are unfounded, not necessary, distracting and will lead to discussions that make regulators and KOLs suspicious of all other claims. There is no need to be afraid for big pharma, they should be concerned about the scarcity of their clinical data and not make additional claims that would even need more proof. Missling plays the genius again, but should focus on delivering the basic work.
Investor2014
15 hours ago
If provides solid support to existing claims and / or new ones, then yes chances can be updated/adjusted.
It’d be fun to see the updated view when that peer review finally does get released.
As always it will be key not to get carried away and to spent time thoroughly reviewing the data and reading the limitations, like these from the P2a peer reviewed paper:
There are some limitations in this study:
• Small sample size, with 32 patients entering the study and
21 patients having available genomic data, which limited the power
of the study.
• Lack of adjustment for multiple comparisons in the analyses of relations
between markers and therapeutic response.
• Genomic analysis results reported for only a subset panel of
243 genes; however, an analysis of 39,974 DNA variants (Table S5
in supporting information) showed SIGMAR1 p.Gln2Pro and COMT
p.Leu146fs in the top 0.2% association rules linked to outcome.
• Standard of care measure of change in MMSE and change in ADCSADL
for calculating effect size were obtained from the literature at
48, 52, and 82 weeks61-64 and extrapolated to 57 weeks, which was
the time point used in this study.
• RNA analysis was limited due to collection time (103 to 135 weeks)
and lack of baseline transcriptome data for comparison. Nonetheless,
an exploratory analysis did find that high SIGMAR1 expression
was associated with better therapeutic response (Table S6 in supporting
information).
• Newly identified patient selection biomarkers were longitudinally
confirmed for change in ADCS-ADL, but not for change in MMSE,
over 148 weeks. This result may be due to a higher variability in
MMSE scores.
tredenwater2
18 hours ago
“ Blarcamesine can compliment a MAB treatment by reducing or stopping brain atrophy and shrinkage”
I agree and it appears to me that you might only need a mab in severe cases of plaque buildup, after you jump through all the other “exclusions” for the mabs.
The mabs do not work symbiotically with the body, hence the ARIAs, and our drug does so I agree, Dr Sabbagh he might be throwing them a bone until we gain approval knowing once we do, their prescriptions will be collecting dust on the shelf.
tredenwater2
18 hours ago
YES! Foundational science being laid/shared and by highly respectable Dr’s in the field. Peer reviewed paper, AAIC, biomarker for Fragile X, bring on AF. I almost hate mentioning him because he nothing more than a sad little wet puppy carrying out the wishes for those trying to gain control of our company’s IP. We are trying to bring major symptomatic relief for so many with so many different diseases, how does he look himself in the mirror daily?
Onward and upward has not always included MC, obviously, but again foundational science being laid WILL lead to approval which will take care of MC!
KIPK
21 hours ago
Autophagy is a highly complex energy producing catabolic process that has evolved to balance the energy consuming anabolic biology.
It is in effect a highly skilled maintenance and recycling process. enabling cells to clear out any old, misfolded, and unwanted damaged constituents... !!!
Without autophagy, health would be an impossibility and imo, failure of autophagy (for various known reasons) is one of the key underlying causes of all chorionic diseases!!
I think the reference by Dr. Sabbagh that the AVXL drug is complementary is a bit of political one as he doesn't want to burn any bridges. And that is because imo, using monoclonal antibodies is a highly inefficient, "Autophagy Mimicking" way of targeting the intended "clean up"....
frrol
21 hours ago
2-73 dislocates S1 from the MAM - hence "chaperone" protein. The hope is that it does this without effecting the S1's MOA, allowing it to fulfill its innate role. That's one of the key differences between mere S1 'agonist' (eg, donepezil) and 'potent agonist'. (There's also selectivity, etc.) Then there's the hope that potently agonizing S1 leads to therapeutic effects in the target indication - AD in this case. You need successful controlled clinical trials to show this. (Despite what knuckleheads claim to already know.)
The company is now making an argument that we have shown this, and has already gotten one major regulator to agree to evaluate our accumulated pre-clinical and clinical data. Folks like Sabbagh are on board, but he's 'on board' in both the figurative and literal sense; he is not an independent evaluator. The CHMP rapporteurs are. Having a peer-reviewed paper will be somewhat helpful, as that provides more validity and cover for what is a very big decision for the EMA. Luckily for the company, all regulators are hungry to approve a helpful, safe, convenient, and affordable AD therapy.
I suspect the company was hoping the paper would be published by now, in time for the summer conferences. It is certainly due now. Looking forward to the paper, and our completed MAA.
Ignore the conspiracies, pumping, and horoscopes. Be investors.