John,
Thanks for support in this harsh and sad moments for CNSI shareholders.
I think that we have some opinion/view on stroke, only we differently explain our position. For stroke my point is (by layman) that it will be hard to develop drug(s) which can save patients life and reduce severe disability/paralysis. As you know Cerestat is administrated IV for two day at very low dose. After that it is normal course for patients recovery which can be longer than several months.
Normally that new drugs, in medical practice for stroke therapy, can be aministrated (orally) for as long as recovery is ongoing. Memantine will be suitable for this application. For first onset therapy I have reservation, but I can be as well wrong.
One thing is still not settling in my thinking. This is pure speculation. Are the risk/benefit ratio for Cerestat combination of the two arms? If they (BI and CNSI) have to analyze each arm separately, because one arm is doing much better than other, and they will preferred (because of this) to continue trials with lower dose (3mg initially and 0.5 mg/hr for 48 hours) arm, than it will be naturally to stop trials, perform completely analysis to confirm interim results, and have remaining 300 (actually 200 for dug) on only one dose!!!
Also, in last Q report company stated that they are expanding Cerestat development by initiating safety study of the drug in hemorrhagic (severe bleeding) stroke patients.
If someone contact CNSI or BI, please ask for this speculation.
Cur,
Cerestat is noncompetitive NMDA antagonist and has hallucinogenic side effects. But, IMO, the bigger problem is elevated blood pressure which can complicated therapy and recovery.
Definitely, the market overreacted to news. The successful Cerestat TBI trials is worth min. $20/share. My concern is CNSI business plan for new drugs in pipeline. We need few more drugs in clinical/pre-clinical study.
mz |
