PAR and BMEL % of OA, page-9

On the 8th Of Sept our friend Sammyall brought to our attention a study¹ on biomarkers and its bio-workings on OA specifically related to the hand. Thisstudy was undertaken in 2014.

Its good to read such articles as it serves to provide extra weight to PAR's findings. Corroborative evidence such as this adds further light to the workings and thus MOA before and during our commitment to invest in PAR.I refer you to the latest announcement by PAR² to get the best and simplest overview of COMP itself and the interactions that Paradigm Bio have discovered, no need to repeat it here, I will now add a few statements and observations from the article Sam. kindly drew our attention to.

The study reports that "While among the first to study hand OA, this study is one of many reporting a positive association of these 2 serum biomarkers with the presence of OA".They also go on to say that their study wishes to assess "likely future value of biomarker studies for the clinical care of patients with OA". As we now know there is a definitive link between thepresence of COMP and the progression of OA.However, the article goes on to suggest that the mere presence of such biomarkers as COMP must be used cautiously as it can vary depending on the activities taken and even the timeof the day they are measured. It suggests that a more meaningful measure of these could be in the prognosis of the OA condition.

They then go on to state that other observations such as Efficacy and subsequently the Burden of the disease may prove to be insightful and useful.Interestingly they state "if treatment slows joint damage then the same measures of dynamic destruction would diminish and provide evidence that the treatment was effective". In otherwords such biomarkers as COMP would be a great and useful measure to see how OA is progressing and conversely how treatments such as our IPPS is positively affecting the slow down (reversal)of the damage caused by OA. Not only that but the report goes on to suggest that such is the sensitivity of the biomarker that it can actuallybe better than MRI itself, "even magnetic resonance imaging may not sensitively reflect the consequences of effective therapy, systemic biomarkers may provide an excellent opportunity to identify whether a treatment is working in treated patients".


_{Better than an MRI? Check for COMP levels instead to see how effective your iPPS treatment is and may be a catch-cry of the not too distant future?}


As if predicting the future, they go on to state " In the meantime studies that focus on biomarkers and their relation to disease burden and prognosis biomarkers have the greatest chance of providing salient evidence supporting their role as efficacy biomarkers" which is what PAR are now saying and hence the recent COMP announcement.

Paradigmers, onwards and upwards into the bright future we go - DYOR

References:

1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4438757/
2) https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20190829/pdf/447zm15cg4fk9y.pdf