007, Stirred, Not Shaken Yo, 007, looks like you've been "stirred, not shaken" by a post about Prothena.
I've written about this before. I think Prothena's xB3 program may have been sidetracked by Biogen's aducanumab (Aduhelm). It's always been specuated that the first Prothena xB3 payload was an amyloid beta drug. Well, Biogen took the starch out of that space with the failures of its amyloid beta drug, aducanumab. Why would Prothena or any other company advance a drug whose efficacy has already been proven to be problematic or even a failure? They simply wouldn't.
If xB3 ever fails, meaning that if it cannot efficiently deliver payloads in an efficacious and safe manner, then it would seem reasonable to think that the failure would be material and it would need to be publicly reported. Bioasis has no substantive value without xB3 and that's why its failure would be material.
xB3 is not a drug and it shouldn't be thought of as one. There have been many drugs that xB3 has successfully delivered that didn't work or couldn't be made commercial. I know about some of them but they are secret. I have asked the CEOs the specific question, "Did xB3 contribute to the failure?" In all cases the answer was "No" and that xB3 did its job.
As a result of the above, I have always contended that pharmas wishing to test a new neurotherapeutic with xB3 should pay for it. In fact, Bioasis should offer xB3 as a service. The reason is simple, and many of you will recall me posting about it. If a new drug can be proven earlier in its R&D path to be a failure, then the pharma could save a lot of money in future, avoidable, R&D costs of both time and money. Bioasis should have a piece of those savings because they wouldn't have happened without xB3.
jd