Curtis:
I can't find out anything, nada, about the chemical nature of the Alzheimer's target. Certainly it's risky, but it's also supported by Janssen (JNJ). Maybe Dr. Tracy can comment. I can say that much of what has been described lately about the components of amyloid that can interact with (and stimulate) glial cells has appeared after GLIA first started to talk about the selection of lead compounds. I don't know if that means that they had a nice, insightful lead or if targets have been subsequently described which are more attractive than their initial leads.
Inflammation is clearly a focus that GLIA had while others were focused on enzymes that process amyloid and other sexy targets. While those sexy targets still appear to be both of interest and "upstream" in any pathological process, I don't think that one can say that the GLIA focus is misguided. As time passes, it looks more and more attractive. But, the bottom line.... for both glial cell activation and for complement, I don't know anything about the quality of candidate molecules. I *can* say that papers are appearing that tend to show that GLIA was mucking in an interesting area, early in the game, for glial cell activation. And time spent on the learning curve of complement inhibition is valuable time.
The other portion of the pipeline is what is most exciting to me, and it is not partnered. It's also a big unknown, and big unknowns in neuro seem to frequently turn into big pits of quicksand, so disclaim, disclaim, disclaim. It's the H(3) receptor antagonist and agonist program, the most advanced molecule from which is GT 2331, an antagonist. It is now through single-dose phase I testing and the results indicate that one dose is sufficient for 24 hours. The indication most frequently discussed is ADHD. The program is partially supported by SBIR funding.
Listen to CEPH and their clinical targets for modafinil. There's a lot of overlap, and there's much more leverage (theirs and all theirs, and patents with gobs of useful life) packed into GLIA's approach. Of course, there's no bird-in-the-hand (Modafinil, narcolepsy), either (disclaim).
Bottom line.... you get the Adcons plus two research programs that address huge markets. One always need worry about patents and the device industry, so even the Adcons are not necessarily sacred in my eyes.
Management has, IMO, done a great job.
Lots of ways to win very big with this business plan, but, yes, as for most biotechs...... extreme risk.
Again, while Dr. Tracy has commitments to his subscribers and I hate to ply him, perhaps he can find a delicate line to walk and give us a bit of his perspective. This just isn't my field, apart from the area where I've got little lead info. Not a good combination.
Rick |
