I would hesitate to call it a cure, which would entail it just needing one time administration, but yes being presented as a very good treatment and superior to what is currently on the market.
Indeed, I saw that too, which makes sense for the markets of almost 9 billion dollars for OPRX-106. Looks like things are moving nicely.
I'm not sure if the ARNA is connected, as the new came out on the 13th March, and ARNA went up on the 19th, but interesting to note nonetheless.
unfortunately yes we did lose a lot. Once again, thank you CC Abbott for misunderstanding and talking nonsense.
I think the partnership situation wouldn't be took impacted by the CFF, simply that they say they have the cash to get them to 2020 at the moment, and that will definitely take them through to completion and approval of 102, thus the money will sustain till a key juncture and then additional Fabry milestone payments kick-in and then followed by Fabry revenues. So I think realistically, their ability to negotiate with potential partners is just as strong as if they had the CFF funds. The annoying thing, will be that perhaps the continued clinical development will be delayed until the partner is brought on, which is never nice to see, especially with what again looks like such a great product. Would be good to move it through asap. But the look like they know what they're doing.
Thanks for sharing the link.
Was very interested to see,
Specific Therapy for Fabry slide:
Showing RCT of both Fabryzyme and Replagal, showed no clinical effect. PRX-102 should be able to blow them out of the water with that. Not to mention all the benefits of longer activity, less dosing needed, no antibodies seen after 1 year treatment and a higher amount of drug getting into the target organs, thanks to the vastly longer half-life.
Again I like that they have kept the US rights, as it shoudl be even easier to sell 102 there, due to replagal not being available there, so only 1 main contender to go up against. (Galafold again just for 30% of patients compared to 102 for 100% targeted patients).
Indeed, hence why I wrote that remark. It was identical to the response you got from IR. Good that they seem to be paying attention.
Thanks again for the link!
