News Focus
News Focus
icon url

CHM_760

02/02/11 8:31 AM

#35636 RE: enemem #35635


I hope that the market reacts favorably.

Don't get your hopes up. Sounds like another dead end to me.
icon url

meixatech

02/02/11 9:39 AM

#35644 RE: enemem #35635

“The problem here is that the subjects who took the drug slept less. This is the most robust finding of the study (p<0.001).”

From the release:

“Sleep efficiency, the percent of time asleep while in bed for the eight hour session, was significantly (p<0.001) reduced by about 20% after administration of CX1739, although the level of daytime sleepiness, determined by the Clinical Global Impressions Daytime Vigilance test given the morning following treatment, was unaffected by CX1739.”

One can conclude from this that CX1739 allows the subject to reduce sleep time and still maintain a daytime wakefulness, at least for the onetime dose. If this effect is long term without side effects, it would have great potential in a number of different areas (college, military etc.)
icon url

davidal66

02/02/11 9:45 AM

#35646 RE: enemem #35635

I was right(a broken clock is you know)that the drug worked but reduced sleep. Keep in mine in the original ADHD pilot study, what was the biggest side effect? Insomnia, while technically not lack of sleep as this was not measured in ADHD, and it was dose dependent with CX717.

If anything, I'm more excited in these results for what they could auger in ADHD. It clearly has a biological impact in apnea. I think it would work better than CX1717 in ADHD.
icon url

Market_Fest4

02/02/11 12:06 PM

#35689 RE: enemem #35635

The good news is that even with ambiguous data, management is finally learning how to apply "spin". Now, if they could do that in negotiations, we might have a prayer.
MF4