While PH-10 has (and obviously should have) the same clinical value proposition as PV-10, near-fully or fully characterizing the compound from a dermatological perspective is incomplete to date. Historical overtures from potential partners to license the compound have been turned away by Provectus because valuations offered have not matched the value PH-10's safety, efficacy and low toxicity, which strongly influences use and frequency of use, engenders (and management's expectations). The MOA and toxicity profile data to which the letter points should, as the company writes, facilitate a New Drug Approval filing and and greatly further licensee discussions.
I heard [but cannot confirm] that Rockefeller University is the research facility (specifically Dr. James G. Krueger, MD, Ph.D. and his Laboratory for Investigative Dermatology) conducting the MOA and toxicity profiling work.
PH-10 licensing activity appeared to have taken a back seat to PV-10 activity for a while. As such, I was struck by management's comments regarding "... the best potential licensees, based on product fit, sales and distribution infrastructure, and other important criteria. Moving forward, we can now focus our efforts on this select group of companies." I plan to follow-up on this.
No comments:
Post a Comment