Firstly, I've not really spent a whole lot of time on IHL. The...

Firstly, I've not really spent a whole lot of time on IHL. The key differences that I can see between the two companies is IHL had a lot of foucs on cannabidoids and the psilocybin clinical program lacked the novelty of invention when compared to TYP. As can be seen below, PSI-GAD was intended to be taken orally. There are many other competitors within the oral administration space, and the inconsistencies and limitations of oral administration are consistent across the board. There really are numerous examples where more effective drug administration has improved the perception and use of a substance - Abraxane is a great example. I think the big difference between IHL and TYP is the novelty of the invention and the competition.



The key criteria that I like to see with Biotechnology companies are:
1. First-to-market advantage
- Something I rate as the greatest of importance with biotechnology, and the points below all feed into first-mover advantage in their own way.
- TYP are advancing TRP-8803 as a first-in-class option for fibromyalgia pain, binge eating disorders, and inflammatory bowl syndrome.
- First-to-market drugs set the precedent for all those who follow, so the next compound is required to be better in some way to capture market share.

2. Little to no clinical competition
- While Beckley Psytech are advancing ELE-101 in the clinic, they are moving on Major Depressive Disorder. I think that this is an interesting play, however, there are already many approved drugs for that indication, which can compete for market capture. Yes, a first-in-class psychoactive therapy could have it's place, but their product has to at least match the currently approved therapies.
- As such, there are no direct clinical competitors for TYP, and the indications that they are going for have approved therapies, but the majority of the drugs approved for these indications are approved for use elsewhere or drugs are used off-label. This makes the clinical risk a little more palatable, and when I see broad acting, durable effects with TRP-8802 mixed with a first-to-market invention to improve bioavailability and blood concentrations, it becomes quite attractive.

3. Timelines
- Time is multifaceted, where you have time to market and time spent capturing market share
- The evidence is highly conclusive that first-to-market products have a signficant advantage over best-but-second compounds in capturing market share
- TRP-8803 is entering P2 trials by next year with no clinical competitors moving into their space.
- This further decreases clinical and commercial risk, making it far more attractive than somehting like IHL



4. TAM / Opportunity
- Clealy, first-to-market compounds take the majority market share, which is a major advantage here
- What is also quite important is the TAM and opportunity is not yet fully understood. As @Titans19 has illustrated to above, the fibromyalgia pain market is significantly larger than simply the incidence rate each year. While I can't speak to the % of people who would like to take a psychedelic drug for fibromyalgia pain, I think the number increases substantially with TRP-8803 and the more precise delivery, blood concentrations, and effect - no one has to worry about speaking with Jesus.
- In addition, since these are chronic conditions, there is a sticky market to capture, which is attractive from an opportunity perspective

There are other things like clinical efficacy and safety that I look at, but these are some of the macro-level elements that I consider before making an investment. Something that I did have a bit of a laugh with is fortunately there is a substantial amount of safety data from the populations of people who have recreationally taken psilocybin, which I suppose is another positive, hah. From where I am sitting, the invention is novel and addresses an large unmet need in a unique, more precise way.

Hope this helps.