Replies to post #182466 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[falconer66a]

Anavex 2-73 Was Best, First

Do you know or have you theories as to why they began with 2-73 instead of 3-71?

Good question. If Anavex 3-71 is capable of better therapeutic outcomes than Anavex 2-73, as the present murine data so strongly indicate, why wasn’t it the first Anavex drug to be clinically tested in humans? Why mess with Anavex 2-73 when 3-71 was actually better?

I have no specific understanding; but I presume that initially, perhaps 5 years ago (or even earlier), the best existing murine data at the time were derived from Anavex 2-73. Those data were sufficient to safely initiate the early human trial in Australia, testing then only for tolerability and safety. I’m presuming that, at the time, the preclinical murine data were stronger for Anavex 2-73. Anavex went with their, at the time, best bet. Animal data good enough to predict comparable human outcomes — which occurred in the early Phase 1 trial.

All of what has happened to date sets things up for the seminal, definitive, new clinical trials. As Missling intimated, clinical trials of Anavex 3-71 are clearly envisioned. No usefulness for those if Anavex 3-71 were the inferior molecule. Missling and company have the data. They know.

Other factors pushing the testing of Anavex 3-73 before the other molecule might have involved synthesis of adequate quantities for a clinical trial. Perhaps Anavex 2-73 could be more easily synthesized; therefore was adequately available for the anticipated clinical trials.

Or, perhaps there were undisclosed intellectual property complications; where Anavex Life Sciences Corp had insufficient rights to the molecule at the time.