Reply to kjt1969You suggest Neuren could keep the present four...

Reply to kjt1969

You suggest Neuren could keep the present four indications for which we are running Phase 2 trials of NNZ2591 and license "the rest" for a multi-billion dollar upfront. From that very large figure I infer you must think "the rest" includes big indications like TBI, autism, etc.

In the last week's presentation (about 51:15) Jon Pilcher talks about the complications of mixing orphan and non-orphan indications. He doesn't go very deeply into what those complications are but he does refer to the difficulty of pricing. Obviously, pricing for autism or another non-orphan indication would have to be vastly lower than the present price of trofinetide, for example. So allowing a licensee to develop NNZ2591 for these non-orphan indications would make it pointless for Neuren to continue pursuing the four orphan indications presently under trial because as soon as we demonstrated efficacy, people would go and get prescriptions for the cheaper drug. The effect on Acadia's position would also be such that I imagine there must be some restraint in our present agreement. After all, they just paid us USD100m for, among other things, the right to use NNZ2591 in Rett's and Fragile-X in North America. But there would be no point in even trialling it in those indications if someone looked like marketing the same drug much more cheaply for something else.

I don't think your scenario stacks up and I think a lot of the "go-it-alone" supporters are similarly confused.