RE: Looking in through the window15 Jun 2022 22:25
So to backup against these wild weak baseless negative opinions from apparently holders. I will try place some facts on NXP002
“Further in vivo studies evaluated the pharmacodynamics of NXP002 when delivered by nebulisation. This study showed that inhaled NXP002 could dose-dependently regulate the production of inflammation and fibrosis-relevant cell mediators in response to a lipopolysaccharide ("LPS") challenge.”
Duration invivo test
“The duration of action of a drug is the length of time that particular drug is effective. Duration of action is a function of several parameters including plasma half-life, the time to equilibrate between plasma and target compartments, and the off rate of the drug from its biological target.”
So to try and put some weight behind the inconclusive CRO data I will try explain.
Tranilast is a very well known drug since invented n 1982 and owned by Kissei Pharmaceutical Japan who hold many many years of data and have had a few other companies take it on for other directions.
It’s a drug that is known to be durable and the toxicity is well known.
The cocrystal route Nuformix have taken is as most know to solve the toxicity issue by reducing the amount required to treat patients.
The previous in rodent data that NXP002 did proved that the drug is delivered via nebuliser.
That’s the main one. Can they get it to the target required. We did.
Durability as many know is what was the amount that then went into the blood and organs etc. This is where the CRO has come back with inconclusive data meaning they couldn’t get a result from the test to make any conclusions.
So something went wrong on this small test because we already know the drug is in the lungs from last invivo test and we know Tranilast is absorbed to the body from all the years of data. It’s even a topical cream for skin disorders.
So they need to test again. From Anne’s statements it was about using lowest dose possible to limit toxicity so this being done on small rodent tests could be risky as the variability of these tests is well known risk of using invivo testing methods on non human species. But it’s obviously safer than human Guinea pigs.
So perhaps it’s easy to have judged the test protocols slightly wrong. That’s then not a big issue.
Then read Riddels statement on the operational update. Looks mighty confident to me on the main line!
Just my opinion.