1) I agree that, on the face of it, the opioid analgesia angle would seem the most promising, and in the past I wrote optimistic scenarios that have turned out to be wrong. It's not for lack of effort on Cortex's part in that area, and I have also talked to a couple of companies about it, and have run into a stone wall each time. Only Biovail bought the concept, but they were a 'thinking-out-of-the-box' operation, the like of which does not currently exist (and Cypress' brutal smackdown when they tried isn't going to encourage imitators).
It's infuriating that, when companies have spent considerable money developing time-release mechanisms for opioids, and then add-on mechanisms to deter abuse of those products, that no one (other than QRx Pharma) has worked on opioid/RD. I'm baffled as to why not--but I think it boils down to--there is added risk and uncertainty when building a combo drug, even when both components are well-known (e.g. MoxDuo). When one of the components is relatively unknown, and there is no oral version suitable for chronic use with even an active IND, they back off.
2)Sparky--Yes, you have advocated the Fragile X route. The problem has been, and remains, the probability that a more trophic Ampakine would have a better chance of altering Fragile X structural deficits. Seaside Therapeutics is well aware of Cortex and vice versa, but they have two platforms going into Phase III or Phase II in Fragile X and autism, and their ability to take on another has been financially limited to sponsoring academic muscarinic research. They don't have the money to give Cortex what they need for a clinical stage program. Afraxis is focused on PAK1, Roche and Novartis on mGluR5. The players currently willing to pursue Fragile X already have their mechanistic 'horses.' If Cortex gets money for one of their other programs, Fragile X might be a good place to invest it in terms of getting their preclinical work done inhouse.
NeuroInvestment
