I read the patent as way of treating Alzheimer's using A2-73 in on/off dosing patterns within a range of dose periodicity. That is, the claims contains no mention of the method of measuring the drugs effect, but is only part of description and drawings to underpin the utility of the A2-73 dosing schemes. The device and/or measurement method is NOT being patented.
The P2a Part A trial cleverly incorporated an extended wash-out period (12 days), which allowed an insight to lasting effects of A2-73 and its metabolite A19-144, which apparently has similar efficacy profile and a 21.45h half-life.
PS! And to Lima's question 12 patients based upon the IV/Oral and Dose level crossover groupings in P2a Part A.
Digressing slightly - This extended activation period of the Sigma-1 Receptor perhaps holds an answer to why DPZ co-administration in smaller doses is ok despite its higher affinity e.g. DPZ is metabolised quicker and leaves the biological system well before A19-144. As such any synergy between A2-73, DPZ and potentially other drugs, whether also S1R agonists or not, may hold several adjuvenant drug combination possibilities. Also not forgetting the A2-73 mixed activation of sigma-1 and muscarinic receptors, the latter associated with its own library of research into potentially therapeutic activation effects in CNS diseases.
Back to the patent - since the patent is about treating AD with A2-73 in periodic patterns of dosing, why then is Cecchi the inventor, him being more closely related with an EEG device? Also why is (according to USPTO Public Pair btw. an effing clunky and slow website) the patent not assigned to Anavex, but instead with Anavex as the applicant indicating that Cecchi is part of Anavex. Even so assignment is customary because otherwise Cecchi as the sole inventor would own all the rights to the patent, not Anavex.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
