TanamiRod,Good post...I suspect 600 is on the optimistic side...

First 32 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Mozzarc

4,093 Posts.

6549

10/03/24

00:39

Post #: 72829741
Share

Originally posted by TanamiRod: ↑

You can "roughly" work out the costs by reverse engineering what the company has disclosed. It is pretty poor that as shareholders you have to do this, but you can all take a rough stab in the dark and add or subtract where you see fit or have differing info (pls all chime in).

They have disclosed the following that I will round up:
Loss for 2023 = $49m, with $46.4m directly attributable to R&D (which we will loosely call trials)
They told you they studied / jabbed 61 patients in _008 and 300 in stage 1 of _002. So that = 361 patients (yes I know there are MPS costs, which we have no idea about, so lets attribute $5m to them...) and if you see that they jabbed more patients then have at it and please correct the above.

So for OA ($41m / 361) = f^&k me, how much?? Umm $113,600 per patient (I did this work 2 years ago and modelled US$40k, so I was way off, I still might be).

Now I know the company is steering people to a lower per patient cost in phase 2 (you can see @Denial is also hearing this), so let's walk it back down to the US$40k mentioned above and make the assumption the FDA will ask them to test another 300 people.
So (US$40k x 300 x 135%) = A$16.2m

Now that sounds like a reasonable, certainly much more palatable cost than the $41m spent in 2023, but there is a lot of fairy dust on it, so please mess around a see where you feel comfortable.
You now have a rough range to work with (A$41m - A$16.2m)

A few things to remember:
They had told you originally there would be 1200 people jabbed for this OA phase3, so you may have to double the # to 600 patients remaining
Always currency exposure as most of this is in US
The above is just a guide, so mess around and add or subtract to your hearts content.

Expand

TanamiRod,

Good post...I suspect 600 is on the optimistic side but I concur it's not impossible...). I also suspect that based on observed data, n will also be revised down at least somewhat from what the last protocol for 002 Stage 2 and 003 was. I tried to ask this at the AGM as my one and only question based on data from 008 and Donna came back saying that there is some scope for revision down. (perhaps not as much as I would like of course)!

We also have to factor in potentially some monitoring that the FDA may still insist on due to increased dose compared to Stage 1 002. Monitoring will add a good degree of expense but if it is required I'm hoping it will be removed at some point past a safety review during P3.

Cheers
Mozz

PAR Price at posting: 39.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
4 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply