Before this all gets a bit too one-sided....PPS does have a...

Before this all gets a bit too one-sided....PPS does have a side-effect.

One point that is sometimes overlooked is that PPS it does have anticoagulant properties i.e. is a ‘blood thinner’ – so may increase bleeding. And bleeding can be a particular concern in elderly patients with poor kidney function (which predisposes them to bleeding).

If you dig into the detail of the Phase 2 trial - you will see that patients with a history of bleeding problems, patients on warfarin etc were excluded from the trial. And I’d imagine would be excluded from the Phase 3 trial.

IMO this is a positive for PPS – in that these issues are already known.

Unexpected / unknown side-effects popping up in trials can cause that SP inflection point to bend the wrong way pretty quickly.

Now before you all go and sell your PAR holdings – like potential liver issues – these are potential exclusion criteria.

Meaning - physicians prescribing the drug would rely on a pretty simple patient history to determine whether or not it is appropriate for them. Given that bleeding risks are associated with NSAIDs, warfarin, NOACs (all common drugs prescribed by GPs in Australia) - this is fairly 'standard practice' across many categories.

Certainly nothing more alarming than the bleeding potential associated with NSAIDs (which folk can swallow like M&Ms at home and get into all kinds of strife). Yes – some liver concerns – but, again, more a question the physician would ponder before administering the drug. You want liver problems? Take too many Panadol and you'll find yourself facing a potentially fatal liver complications.