Comparing Apples To Oranges, Or Rather The Hypotetical Performance Of Blarcamesine And Simufilam. $AVXL vs. $SAVA

This Blog Is Only For Educational Purposes. Do Not Trade On This Blog Alone. Do Your Due Deligence or Consult Professional.

This is quick and dirty, I have no time for bibliography and references. I had been giving references links but now I have no time so if you want references I can provided them on request. For most of you the references for those illustrations are already known. I apologize for misspellings and gramatical errors.

I think that we are still far away from actual comparison as phase 2b/3 data for Blarcamesine has not yet been released and Simufilam phase 3 data is years away. Such comparison would be rigorous and definitive. The best insight into the performance of both can be only have by examining qualitatively and quantitatively the data released by both companies, which would be of the same quality and format. Otherwise certain assumptions are necessary to be made.

First assumption I make is that $SAVA ‘s 9 months is sufficiently advanced for these purposes as it slowly develops over time and the difference in scores between 9 months and 12 months is small.


Let’s see the best or rather most detailed data we have from $SAVA Simufilam for the 9 months of dosing in 50 subjects. This is the best detailed data yet. Blarcamesine doses for 11 months, that is 2 more months but the super responders react explosively to the drug in first 5 weeks with steady improvement over the rest of the dosing period. Other patient on Blarcamesine either hold their deterioration or deteriorate slowly, less than -2 MMSE points. For my purposes comparing 11 months to 9 is acceptable.

The data for each patient is the delta or change in ADAS-Cog11 scores defining the progress made by each patient The labels with MMSE scores are only for insight as I have a better equation now to transform ADAS-Cog11 scores into MMSE scores.. In the plot below data from convesion table has been plotted and a trend line through the points has been caculated. Equation of the line is the used to convert the scales. Notice that small error has been introduced but the conversion is necessary as each company’s data is in the other scale.

X Axis is ADAS-Cog11 scale, Y Axis is MMSE scale MMSE=(-.317 * ADAS-Cog11) + 30.92

After that I have calculated the Mean value for the 50 patients to be 25.7 MMSe points. This is very high comparing to phase 2a for Blarcamesine but it is comparable to phase 2b/3 for Blarcamesine.

These two table list the results of measurments off the graph provided by $SAVA and transformation of deltas from ADAS-Cog11 to MMSE scale with as large possible fidelity as it is possible for me.

If we devide the results into classes or ranges of responces to the Simufilam as expressed in MMSE changes for each patient we get following graph. It is very uncanny when such order emerges from the chaos of graph.

We can arrive at the following conclusions

  • The population of patients is spread evenly between Δ 3 < 2 ανδ Δ -1 < -2.
  • Super performers (Δ >3) are only 50% (n=5) average populations of other ranges/classes. and this is understandably low.
  • The lowest performers are just 22% (n=11) of population and are clustered at Δ -1 < -2 which we can consider the average decline for 9 months time for normal progress of the disease.
  • There are no members of population deteriorating below of the average natural progress of the disease.

Let us try to do the same for the hypotethical Blarcamesine results from phase 2b/3.

Image #1.

By examining the plot we can conclude that Group1 and Group2 are of great interest to us as they are all above MMSE 20 points. We expect that all patients in the phase 2b/3 are to be above 20 MMSE. The Group1 goes through explosive resonse in just 5 weeks of dosing. Group2 holds its scores for at least 52 weeks. The differense for these groups is the presence of APOe3 or APOe4 Alleles. All probabilities being equally represented following distribution of population can be expected.

This table was used to arrive for the above distribution of factor impacting performance in trial population

The following information is available for us to make guess estimate of the hypotethical perfomance of different populations in the phase 2/3.

The following conclusion can be reached by analysing the information found in both graphics.
37% of population should perform at MMSE Δ >3, normalized to 50 patients, n=19
34% of population should perform at MMSE Δ 3 < 2 , normalized to 50 patients, n=17
10% of population should perform at MMSE Δ 0 < -2, normalized to 50 patients, n=5
19% of population should perform at MMSE Δ -4 < -6, normalized to 50 patients, n=9

I expect high number of super responders from the information supplied by the company. $SAVA ‘s performers are closely clustered with very few declining but Blarcamesine offeres explosive response for the selected majority, whereas it does not do much for the those mutated or carries of APOe4 allel. Blarcamesine results are highly dependent on genetic make up. Simufilam seems like “tailored for success” all over the spectrum. The real question is, will Simufilam hold this “dream performance” the next 3 years? If Simufilam can hold the candle long term it can be used where Blarcamesine can not deliver.

If you can do anything for me, it is to watch short videos about energy on my Youtube channel Energy Shock Tips. The longest is 5 minutes.

Please, leave comments, as this Simufilam performance graph is very interesting. I wonder what you think about it.


Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount


Or enter a custom amount


Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Leave a Reply