Bio, we will have to agree to disagree on the Aricept approval and number of phase 3 studies reviewed by FDA. It is true, the DPZ trials were much shorter (15 and 24 weeks) back in the mid 1990's. The trend in AD studies over the past 5 years (P2 and P3) has been to do a one year study. In a chronic condition assessing whether a drug is disease modifying, proof of longer term benefit is reasonable --- would DZP have been successful over a year? Maybe, maybe not. MS Phase 3 studies last 2 years. Symptomatic trials can be shorter.
There is no doubt that the SOC for AD is sub-par, double bogey at best like my typical hole. However, this does not change the location of the bar and the regulatory agencies will want to see the primary endpoint met. I do little AD now but did much more last decade. Personally, I think it has some benefit, at least for some, and the annual cost is less than 2 days in a nursing home ($200/year for drug) now that it is generic. I disagree with France (not the first time) and have never had any serious safety issues with it. Hence, to me and I believe to my patients, the minimal benefits are worth the minimal risk/cost. Tolerability for DPZ is mixed, as it is with many drugs. A273 also has mixed tolerability as there were some withdrawals due to vertigo. From a clinical rather than trader/investor viewpoint, I am very much looking forward to the 2/3 results.
Disagreeing with most on this board, I still expect 2 studies will be needed for AD, the ph 2/3 and another ph 3. The DSMB will be tasked with giving a recommendation as to whether the 450 patient study will be increased in size or modified in a pre-specified plan (that will not be made public). A second study will be designed based on the 2/3, size TBD based on statistician recommendations but IMO likely larger than 450, and may screen away patients with variant genes if supported by the initial study.
Take Care,
Doc
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
