@belowaveragefair point to bring up amigo.
“Two of the five hamsters with COVID-19 infection on Day 6 indicated adverse clinical symptoms in the high dose R529 group and were excluded from the study. The Company considers a study specific anomaly since R529 was routinely well tolerated at considerably higher intravascularly infused doses in-vivo.”
I can’t really find much data in the announcements regarding R529 tolerability and toxicology but from the announcement: Positive & concentration-dependent efficacy of RECCE® compounds against COVID-19 in international study: “Concentrations of R327 and R529 tested, further indicated an excellent toxicity profile” I think this announcement was the stepping stone to proceed the research into our compounds on COVID.
“Cytotoxicity Testing in Vero Cells Protocol: The cytotoxicity of R327 (153 ppm, 76 ppm, 38 ppm, 19 ppm, 13 ppm, 6 ppm, 3 ppm, 2 ppm, 1 ppm) and R529 (82 ppm, 55 ppm, 41 ppm, 33 ppm, 27 ppm, 16 ppm, 12 ppm, 8 ppm, 4 ppm) across a range of concentrations was assessed in a Vero cell luminescence assay, and cell viability measured at time-points of 1 hour, 24 hours and 72 hours incubation, using a Control of untreated healthy Vero cells. At all time points and concentrations measured, both RECCE® compounds demonstrated minimal cytotoxic effects, with more than 99% of tested cells retaining their viability.”
I agree it’s a bit strange that 2 of the 5 hamsters in the higher dosage range were pulled from the study. There is a lot more safety data on R327 which makes me feel comfortable with my investment decision in RECCE.
Have it be, I’m sure that R327 was the original pillar of business development and therefore there has been more preclinical studies done on it but with COVID19 being a virus and not bacterial the company obviously must think R529 is worth pursuing. I’m sure the coming months will provide further details on R529.
(20min delay)