Xenalives, I happened to mention NTRP on an Anavex board just for scientific comparative purposes over a year ago, and, have followed both from a distance. From what I have seen, the Anavex lead compound has more robust formal data and research in preclinical work due to using the most contemporary preclinical modeling and adaptive trial design in early stage development. That being said, in my opinion, there are several reasons why NTRP has a more interesting compound. I see them as being competitive in the marketplace were they both to reach the market, but, there is plenty of room in this space for several effective drugs to help with this disease or these diseases. If you read up on Dr. Alkon and his research background you will see there has been some interesting work behind NRTP via the BRNI. The science is very interesting but there is virtually no efficacy data in humans other than plenty of safety data from NCI work on cancer at higher doses. One point that is absolutely stunning is the fact that NTRP is going for moderate to severe, which is unprecedented in this space. I have not seen anyone go there, at least not any of the BP's who have invested decades in this space. For NTRP AD everything is riding on this P2b, though they would still have alternative potential uses of the compound which could make the company successful. You will not find much confirmed science here as it is so new and so different from all the work pursued by BP's to date. But, it is a very interesting approach. And, given the lack of compound availability you can see another reason why it has not been worked with much by anyone. There was a multi-year project to be able to synthesize it rather than farm it from sea farms, which has never been a desirable source to be relied on for a large scale pharmaceutical, though there are some large scale natural source examples which have succeeded.
There was a poster that commented on the mfg agreement, which is critical here. But, all should keep in mind, NTRP has no choice but to work concurrently here. The compound synthesis has to be commercially available in a short time frame, relative to such API development and scale up time frames. So, their investment in their API is timely, is an absolute necessity, probably why the timing of their recent raise, and, had to be committed to concurrently, regardless of which indication they may succeed at.
My opinion is just that this company has sprung from a very focused and sound scientific beginning in BRNI, has found something worth pursuing and has invested in a significant potential pathway when BP was looking elsewhere. They have found a way to finance the work to date, including the synthesis work with Stanford, not the normal way BP would do it. I think their basic science, their work to date, and, their overall scientific medical approach as well as their technical approach are all very interesting. But, I do not think you will find much deep substantiation until P2b top line data is published. There is a bit of comparison to IO, where some DC companies pursued DC therapy when BP was going in another direction. But, in this case all the BP activity has overtly completely failed because they pursued the wrong set of biological relationships underlying AD.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
