RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The time is here , Monday news MUGMODs wrote: Yes, we need to be realistic ... but ...<br /> <br /> if the drug is as good as the safety data indicates, while some may wait the company out, others will be trying to lock down a partnership. <br /> <br /> Too much at stake by waiting. <br /> <br /> NSAID market share is at risk for many players. That's why Bayer (with the largest marketshare) needs to make a win-win offer to ATE ... either for one drug or for the entire company, otherwise they will feel it the most.<br /> <br /> Any small competitor or a non-competitor could enter the market and destroy the others - so - it would be in their best interest to make a win-win offer. Once-a-day is a big opportunity vs. what's out there right now.<br /> <br /> You snooze - you lose ... could very well apply here!<br /> <br />
<br /> <br />
I agree with you in the abstract. re safety profile, waiting too long, and/or competitors/threats.
However, the biggest and most realistic issues:
- Nothing has been noted as of yet on lower GI damage. Thats something that IR has noted saying they will investigate in the future. And is not a requirment for FDA approval.
- Hard to say for sure if results will be positive enough i.e. whether womac will be >4. If not, its over. The previous sample size was 12 participants and not double blind. So its an issue of accuracy not validity.
- Lastly, lower thromboxane doest not equal to lower preception of pain. Which is why there is still major risk involved.
The points you're making MUGS, is from future value, stragegic positioning, and if all steps go positively without any hangups. strategic positioning has nothing to do with the science. Its actually, the other way around. If results are positive, then all of what you said would be more realisitic. As of now, there is major risk.
If this was a slam dunk, it would have been bought up by now, make no mistake about that. Many companies have been boughtout in earlier stages than this. Food for thought.