If ANAVEX 2-73 performs like this…savings are…!

it is indeed after July 25th, 2018 and that is when AVXL made claims that ANAVEX 2-73 should perform on average over period of a 1 years with following parameters Δ=+2 MMSE (+4.9 ADCS-ADL) starting from baselineof  >= 20 MMSE.  I do not exactly know how they got to that point but I take it as article of faith (You’ve gotta believe someone).  Of course, that is after dropouts and the unresponsive variants of SIGMAR1 and COMT genes are removed from the ITT population.  This is comparable to the average performance of the STRONG from CTAD, November 2017 presentation. This make me confident enough to be tempted to peek into the future and attempt to calculate the impact of ANAVEX 2-73 on GDP of Unites States.

We know that after 2 years into Phase 2a the STRONG response bifurcated into two groups: 3 patients group whose MMSE scores kept on steadily going up on gentle incline and those who (2 patients) after initial response succumbed to further decline, 1/3 the decline of undruged patients on natural course of the disease. This illustration says almost all.Untitled 7.png

Y Axis: MMSE (Mini Mental State Examination) Scores

X Axis: Weeks into trial.

It is rather obvious that the SET A improves over time and will “never” (in terms of the study) need to be cared for.  SET B must be evaluated vs. some group that is  those who comprise the rest of Alzheimer patients (natural progress).  The natural decline is slope -3.8MMSE/year (that is excluding those who droptout from study).  After calculating this from SET B slope on the plot this metric is in term of MMSE points over period of year is -1.04MMSE/year.  About 15 MMSE points is the target at which point into consideration comes institutionalizing a patient or 24 hour care. If we start from 24 MMSE score than with normal decline it takes about 2.1 years to reach that point of dysfunction but for those in SET B it is 7.7 years. Since the incidence of Alzheimer disease is exponentially growing with age let’s assume that only 2/3 of that population would be overtaken by morbidity before facing hospitalization or require serious care.

Hence from the AAIC, July 2018 poster we know that 80% of ITT population should respond in this way and that by 2 years only 61% population stays in the trial as the rest have declined so swiftely that they dropout (>15 MMSE level(?)) we are faced with about 50% of overall population sick with Alzheimer being responsive to ANAVEX 2-73 as the model predicts.

From 5.7 million suffers, half is potential responders = 2,850,000

The ones “cured” are 60% of that population = 1,710,000

Saving accrued = 1,710,000 * $30,000/year=$51,300,000,000/year

second branch is (the 40% responding like in SET B) = 1,140,000 * .66 * $30,000/year

= $22,572,000,000 (2/3 only saving in population due to morbidity before hospitalization)

That is about ~$74 billion savings/year

This about $74/$20,000=.37% GDP (  $20 trillion GDP )

I assumed cost of $30,000 which is combination of cost of hospitalization ($87,000) and part time care.  This should give basic insight into the cost, you are encourage to plug in your own numbers.

Just don’t, It isn’t worth it!

Only $3 Bills Accepted

$3.00

I already got a pitcher of beer out of this…..Do you really want to keep me sober?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s