Rusbrn, There's usually a backup compound included in pharma deals, and the RD partner is probably going to be interested in exploring the lucrative chronic indications like sleep apnea, where CX-717's artifact trouble could reemerge as an approval problem. These new low impacts like CX-1739 are also a lot more potent than the CX-717 era compounds (CX-1739 being ~5 times more potent), so one would expect the RD partner to want at least one of the new compounds.
With so much riding on these new low impacts, one of the biggest question marks in my mind is - 1) whether they will share the high safety of the earlier benzofurazans, and 2) will they have similar efficacy in specific indications such as ADHD? As we know, there's a vast array of AMPA receptor subunit combinations in the different areas of the brain (4 subunits, plus 'flip' and 'flop'), and different Ampakine compounds hit the various subunit types in differing strengths/ proportions. We know there's a considerable variation in activity/efficacy/safety between different compounds within the benzofurazan sub-family of benzamides. While the new low impact compounds are presumably benzamides, they probably aren't benzofurazans (we investors don't yet know that for sure either way).
I'm still wondering how Dr. Street managed to suddenly discover all these new low impacts within months of his arrival at Cortex. The high impact 'breakthrough' apparently also coincided with Street's arrival. CX-717 had excellent activity in ADHD, and there's a reasonably good chance that other similar benzofurazans like CX-701, Org-24448 (or Org-26576), might also have good activity in ADHD. However, it's a much bigger jump to expect replicating CX-717's ADHD activity as you move to compounds from a new chemistry. Replicating the benzofurazan's very high degree of safety is not a given either.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
