I am relatively new here but in regards to competition PAR does...

I am relatively new here but in regards to competition PAR does have some, maybe different in many ways but still competition, Tanezumab and Fasinumab have fallen by the way side but a few others out there as one would expect with such a golden egg if found. It does show what $ big farmer is prepared to pay though.

A quick search I did before investing in PAR, I read this article it was from Feb 2020 some of the figures mentioned are mind blowing, PAR was around low $4 at the time. Sorry if it has already been posted

full link here

https://arichlife.com.au/a-blueprint-for-valuing-paradigm-biopharmaceuticals-asx-par/Competing drugs in development

When investing in a pharmaceutical company, it is important to know about the possible competitor drugs and, if those drugs are under development, track the development. Paradigm has a few key competitors which are developing DMOADs for arthritic indications:

• Galapagos is developing GLPG1972 (marketed as ROCCELLA) which is a DMOAD candidate targeting the treatment of cartilage loss by inhibiting cartilage degrading enzyme ADAMTS-5. On 15 July 2019, Gilead Sciences agreed a US$5.1 billion deal with Galapagos which included in relation to GLPG1972, an option to pay a $250 million fee to license the compound in the United States after the completion of ongoing Phase 2b study for treatment of osteoarthritis. If certain secondary efficacy endpoints are met, Gilead would pay up to an additional $200 million. Following opt in, Galapagos would be eligible to receive up to $550 million in regulatory and commercial milestones (i.e. Gilead Sciences will potentially pay up to US$1 billion for GLPG1972);
• Medivir is developing MIV-711 which inhibits cathepsin K, the principle protease involved in breaking down collagen in bone and cartilage. Developed to slow or reverse the progressive degeneration of joints affected by osteoarthritis. Phase 2a studies showed no statistically significant reduction of pain or improvement of function or quality of life. Reduced loss of cartilage thickness demonstrated;
• Pfizer and Eli Lilly are developing Tanezumab which is a DMOAD candidate that inhibits NGF. Phase 3 study met 2 of 3 co-primary efficacy endpoints, demonstrating a statistically significant improvement in pain and physical function compared to NSAIDs at 16-week analysis but patients’ overall assessment of their OA was not statistically different than NSAIDs and there was a statistically significant higher rate of joint safety events in the tanezumab arms compared to NSAIDs at 80 weeks. Discontinuations due to adverse events were high among those receiving tanezumab compared to NSAIDs during the 56 week treatment period. Eli Lilly had paid $200 million and agreed to up to $1.4 billion in milestone payments to gain rights to Tanezumab. The drug is unlikely to be approved due to safety concerns;
• Teva and Regeneron are developing Fasinumab which is a DMOAD candidate that inhibits NGF. Trials were previously put on hold due to safety concerns. Teva had paid $250 million and agreed to $1 billion in milestone payments for rights to Fasinumab; and
• Centrxion is developing CNTX-4975 for treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Phase 2 study showed 1mg improved pain up to 24 weeks, 0.5 mg improved pain up to 12 weeks.