Happy New Year!

Yesterday a highly relevant article was posted online. The authors conclude (quoting):

"An inhibitor selective for BD2 in all BETs, but not that for BD1, blocked EndoMT ". The inhibitor they used was RVX208...!

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2019/01/04/509414?rss=1

The BD2 domain of BRD4 is a determinant in EndoMT and vein graft neointima formation

EndoMT (endothelial-mesenchymal transition) is what drives neointima formation, and neointima is what causes restenosis, i.e. the unwanted thickening of the arterial that often happens when a stent has been placed in the coronary arteria or veins are grafted (CABG). The authors basically conclude that RVX208 hits the right target by inhibiting BD2 and not BD1.

As far as validating the science behind RVX208 goes, this is one of the most important (non-Resverlogix authored) articles I have found.

A bonus piece of information is that in the ASSURE study (as far as I could see), there appears to be 4 cases of restenosis in the placebo arm vs. only 1 case in the RVX208 arm - despite the fact that there were roughtly twice as many patients in the RVX208 arm relative to the placebo arm - i.e. in the ASSURE study restenosis occured 8 times more frequently in the placebo arm than in the RVX208 arm... And now this article says that RVX208 blocks EndoMT... We are off to a good start of 2019!

I did, by the way, bring this to Don's attention. They are probably already aware of it - I have the impression that they are very good at keeping up with the science going on in other labs, but just to be sure.

Best regards,

BKC

Disclaimer: Do your own due diligence, I may have overlooked cases in the ASSURE study and made other serious errors in my analyses. Reverlogix is and has always been a highly risky investment.