Replies to post #80191 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

MNTA: …shouldn't these benefits of M118 translate into measurable clinical improvement vs the existing "flawed" anticoagulants in this patient population?

The short answer is no. The only comparator in the just-completed phase-2a trial was UFH, so clearly this trial could not possibly have demonstrated M118 superiority vs Lovenox or Angiomax, which weren’t used.
Moreover, the purpose of the phase-2a trial was not to prove that M118 is safer than UFH in PCI, which would require an enormously large trial; rather, the purpose was to enable MNTA or a partner to conduct a larger, phase-2b study of M118 in ACS, the actual indication for which M118 is targeted.

Please see #msg-37693105 for additional background info.