I'm not going to beat this horse too much more, but just re-iterate what I posted the first time.
Making a decision between -031 and -051 right not cannot be justified on scientific grounds (based upon deCode's public information). Any decision made on business grounds would be premature and risk the failure of the entire cardiovascular program.
There is no "real" (by that I mean human clinical) data suggesting -051 will do anything in a cardiovascular indication. There is at least some (weak, one could argue) clinical data that -031 may do something. So suggesting that -031 should be dropped is, well, simply not supported by the data. (One might even say such a comment was "strange").
You're right, they can't run two Phase 3's, without some other source of funding. But that's not the decision point they are at right now. The Phase 3 for -051 is a long way off -- they just started Phase 1. And, as a novel molecule against a novel target, they aren't going to go all that fast.
The only reason to drop -031 would be a belief that the data they have do not support further development -- but they seem to have made that decision already. Unless, of course, the science didn't support that decision, and they simply made a bad "business" decision.
P.S. Remember that the two molecules hit two different -- related, but quite different -- targets. Why do you think the sales of one would cannibalize the other? Might the effects be additive? Might they treat patient populations? Are you assuming LTB4 is the only story here? |
