Hi @col69, " While the dates are only guidelines / estimates as...

Hi @col69,

" While the dates are only guidelines / estimates as the trial can be stopped early for overwhelming efficacy it clearly demonstrates that the company needs to finalise a lucrative partnership deal as we simply don’t have the cash runway to accomodate these timelines "

Well, a partnership can be good - IFF the terms were lucrative for Mesoblast Ltd, and not the other guy. In my experience, life doesn't work that way (except by chance - think TEVA).

But if you're talking aobut CLBP Col, I don't really agree that these dates 'clearly demonstrate' a need in CLBP.

Are you perhaps thinking more about Rexlemestrocel for CHF? I can readily agree that MSB now needs more urgently a trial cost-covering partnership for HFrEF with LVAD. But I don't see any urgency for CLBP, which has been planned to be funded all the way through from the AGM last year. And now it's covered to the Board's satisfaction.

But an AA in HFrEF - now that would put the cat amongst the pigeons - would be a disruption to MSB's capacities that are already stretched in 2 different directions i.e. with CLBP and, more importantly just now, SR-aGVHD. For that acceleration of BLA prep and lodging of a funded submission, I agree we'd need a partnership, and I think that's being worked on even harder right now than it was already for CHF without the FDA support for the AA pathway om HFrEF with LVAD.

Interested in your thoughts.

Cheers