Tamoxifen is the cash cow of Zeneca.
Pharmos has a much sure product in tamoxifen analogs
(once they identified the ones to develop) than with
dexanabinol. Tamoxifen is already proven, dexanabinol
has a long way to go (so far I believe in dexanabinol and
holding my shares).
Pharmos primarily needs to prove a better safety profile on a tamoxifen
analog. It is already proven efficacious, and it will be tough to
choose the next analog so wrong that the compound has less efficacy.
If it were not for the known efficacy of tamoxifen, I would not
hold a lot of hopes in the analogs.
In the annual report Pharmos refers to the rats experiment good
results. But, it also talks about an important detail, it was done
in implanted human tumors in the rats, not in native rats tumors.
It is easier to heal implanted tumors vs natives. Many drugs failed in
the transition from treatment of implanted to natives. Tamoxifen analog
risks are much lower since the original is proven in humans.
Back to my original point, Pharmos tamoxifen methiodide is less
available to the brain and other nervous tissues, this property
results in less toxicity to the brain. It does not get in there,
then it does not damage there.
Zeneca's tamoxifen was reccomended for approval for breast
cancer prevention in the known high risk population. The main concern
now is safety (efficacy is confirmed for 5 years), if one analog could
provide the safety features then it is the main candidate to be use for
prevention. This women are still healthy, no cancer yet. To exposed then
to an agent is not the same as to exposed a cancer stricken one.
Speculations:
Zeneca is the most logical partner for one of Pharmos analogs, both
to obtain the improved safety profile and/or to prolong the life of
their patent.
Barr is the only generic available, they are very aggresive in their
anti-patent legal fights (the best challengers of patents with many
products and fights in their record) who knows maybe they will be the
ones interested. |
