You're right, some of the individual investors asked some excellent questions.
Re: High impacts.... He mentioned Pfizer himself, so that's an obvious one. GSK has an Ampakine in PhI, sz is their first emphasis. Servier could be the most likely, most desirous (not desirable, but they may offer more money)--since they may see a couple Big Pharmas getting ahead of them in an area they have long-pursued.
Cypress Biosciences ran a study a few years ago with Organon, testing Remeron in-if I recall correctly--a combination therapy in sleep apnea. They did a pretty large study, and the combination failed. It was a serotonergic strategy, like the one BTG is pursuing with a combo treatment.
His point was that if you just have people be pre-screened, then do one sleep study night, then have some treatment for a month or two, before coming back for a post-drug sleep study, it's a lot easier than a trial where they have to do three sleep study nights in quick succession. Of course, it also means that patients with a lot of inherent variability can get into the trial, which can muddy the results. So did the combo fail because it doesnt have an effect, or because the effect was obscured by SA variability? Vivus also ran their SA study this way, extended duration, indeed they had to, since it was the loss of weight that most likely caused the apnea episodes to diminish. And that trial did work.
So instead of using rigorous screening to give the study some power, you can increase treatment duration and the sample size to try to do the same thing. They couldnt afford to run a 200pt study with CX1739.
My only area of disagreement with their plan, which I think is well done, is that I'm not sure I'd drag out the SA study longer. Fourteen patients over fifteen months--I'd be sorely tempted to break the blind now and see if there's a signal....if you can't see anything at 14, will you be likely to see much at 20?
All in all, it sounds to me like they've thought it all through very thoroughly. Even the willingness to wait on relisting rather than going for it ASAP suggests that they have a very logical sequence in mind. SA is still the wild card. But ADHD is the most probable driver of value. Had they demanded royalties on RD, maybe they would have gotten $3-4 million upfront, which would have precluded doing the ADHD study without another financing. An ADHD partnership in the next 18-24 months trumps royalties in six or seven years so far as impact on Cortex's valuation is concerned.
NeuroInvestment
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
