OT - KG, We'll see what they have to say in the conf call. I still think they have an interesting idea, but I haven't done enough DD on the company to be able to evaluate their chances in the Phase 3. Even if the Phase 3 study design isn't able to show the required 30 day survival benefit, as long as the safety is OK, I would still rather have the product available than no replacement blood at all (in ambulances, or on the battlefield for example).
One added advantage to their approach is that it removes any viruses present, which is something you can't say about the regular blood supply. The big advantages are the lack of incompatibility problems, so you can just start blood replacement immediately at the trauma site, and the long shelf life (over 12 months vrs 42 days). Bottom line is that if I had lost a huge amount of blood in a car wreck, I would rather have an immediate replacement with PolyHeme than no replacememt at all until reaching the hospital, because you would probably just die before getting there.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
