RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Bloom BurtonI have to agree. I figure the SGLT2 inhibitor adds maybe ..20-50 to SBM's current value (i.e., at $20-50M), while the skin lighteners could reasonably be valued anywhere from $1 to $5, depending on how one perceives the competition.
The fact that they beat arbutin in efficacy and safety is only the prerequisite to enter the race. It doesn't mean it will win. As it is now, the only skin lightener that I know of that would be more effective than SBM's is deoxyarbutin. SBM's lighteners are an order of magnitude more powerful than the arbutins, but deoxyarbutin is two orders of magnitude more effective.
The drawback of deoxyarbutin is its lack of stablity. It won't last more than a week or two on the shelf in an aqueous composition, and it releases hydroquinone as it decomposes. If SBM chooses to use their fluorination to stabilize deoxyarbutin, it will have a winner.
Unfortunately, they haven't released the exact structure of the two lighteners they have, although it is clear they are both analogs of arbutn with the ester O replaced by F. My guess is that they are simply the fuorinated versions of alpha and beta arbutin.
TFChem is aware of deoxyarbutin, but when I asked about how SBM compounds compare against deoxyarbutin, I was told that the company "chooses to compare their compounds against arbutin" in public communications. I am certain that the F'd version of deoxyarbutn would be an even more effective tyrosinase than SBM's current product. The way I read their primary patent, it covers F'd deoxyarbutin. They may have some reason to run with the F'd arbutin rather than F'd deoxyarbutin right now, since they are already in advanced development. SBM could end up dominating the market either way.