SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : Pharmos (PARS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: crysball who wrote (329)12/11/1998 9:25:00 AM
From: NeuroInvestment  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1386
 
The problems with handicapping potential partners based on criteria 2 or 3 are: some companies with failed TBI drugs then shy away from the neuroprotectant field (e.g. Novartis, having had Selfotel fail, then bailed out on the Cocensys drug licostinel at the first hint of renal effects), rather than embrace a new candidate. Similarly, some companies without apparent neuroprotectant candidates are there because of choice--they have decided that it is too much of a 'crapshoot', indeed some have avoided CNS programs overall. Thus the list of potential suitors is too large to list--one Big Pharma company that is well along with a neuroprotectant drug is Glaxo, which has its glycine site stroke drug halfway through PhIII--thus they might be less likely (though at their size, they could want a backup program, especially since there is some doubt in the neuro community about the viability of the glycine site strategy). In contrast, one could list Warner Lambert as a more probable candidate given the failure of ziconotide, but it is possible that this failure will cause them to temporarily become more cautious about another neuroprotectant partnership. Thus the presence or absence of neuroprotectant programs either ongoing or failed is not--in my opinion--a face valid criterion for establishing the likelihood of interest. NeuroInvestment (www.neuroinv.com)