Ann: Positive Patients Update - Special Access Scheme, page-73

I believe you will find that what the table presents is the results from trials comparing the rate of reduction in the level of the organism on isolated pig skin.

The trials are aimed at testing the efficiency of R327 when released to the skin from within a gel compared with simply applying it as a liquid.

In one case the compound is applied to the skin simply as the liquid that would be used in the intravenous trials.

In another case the compound is contained within a gel of carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), this being the material used to form the gel. The CMC present at a concentration of 1%.

In the other case the CMC is present in a concentration of 2%.

Presumably the concentration of the R327 is the same in all cases, ie the concentration used for intravenous purposes.

The 2% CMC gel would I expect be more ‘solid’ than the 1% and the migration of the R327 compound out of the gel to the site would be correspondingly slower than with the 1%. As a result, the effect after 1 hr is lower with the 2% (0.90 - a little lower than a 10 fold reduction) than with the 1% (2.10 - a little over 100 fold reduction).

However, the slower rate of release of the active compound from the 2% CMC gel provides a a longer more sustained release with the result that after 24 hrs the 1% gel shows about a 50 thousand fold reduction (4.32) whilst the 2% gel has shown a little over 100,000 fold reduction.

That is my interpretation of the results anyway.

poorinvestor