Which specific companies has the Dementia Discovery Fund invested in and what are their current clinical statuses?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Dementia Discovery Fund (DDF), managed by SV Health Investors, has built a multi‑dozen portfolio since 2015 and reports that a substantial fraction of its investments have reached clinical development — but public reporting from the fund and allied press releases names only a handful of portfolio companies and gives aggregate clinical counts rather than a definitive company-by-company clinical status list [1] [2]. Available sources confirm specific investments such as Transposon, Amphista and (in third‑party databases) Alchemab, and they confirm DDF’s headline metrics: tens of companies, multiple clinical-stage assets, and early investments from DDF‑2 — yet they do not supply an authoritative, up‑to‑date roster of every company and each one’s trial stage [3] [4] [5].
1. What DDF publicly discloses: portfolio size and clinical tallies
DDF’s own materials and press coverage consistently quantify the fund’s reach rather than listing each portfolio company: DDF reports nurturing a portfolio of roughly 16–19 companies from its first fund and says more than 50 dementia‑focused programmes have been supported overall, with between 11 and 13 assets reported as clinical‑stage at various times [1] [6] [2]. The fund’s May 2025 announcement for DDF‑2 emphasised that the new vehicle will build a final portfolio of 10–15 companies and highlighted aggregate impact claims such as “more than 2,000 people have received experimental treatments” attributable to DDF activity [2] [7]. Those are the firm facts the fund promotes in public statements [2].
2. Specific companies explicitly named in the available reporting
Only a few portfolio or related company names appear in the provided reporting: Transposon is referenced in DDF portfolio news tied to a completed Phase 2 study of TPN‑101 for C9orf72‑related ALS/FTD (noting final results) — a direct clinical status signal in DDF’s news stream [3]. Amphista Therapeutics is named in a portfolio update for nominating AMX‑883 as a first clinical development candidate, indicating pre‑clinical to IND‑enabling transition [4]. A third name, Alchemab Therapeutics, appears as an entity recorded as a recent investment in a market database entry — PitchBook notes an investment date but the snippet does not state clinical status [5]. These three names are among the small number of companies the sources explicitly associate with DDF activity [3] [4] [5].
3. What is known about clinical stages for named companies — and the limits of the reporting
Transposon’s Phase 2 results citation signals that at least one DDF‑backed programme reached and completed mid‑stage clinical testing (Phase 2) as reported on DDF’s site [3]. Amphista’s nomination of AMX‑883 as a clinical development candidate indicates that the company was moving from discovery/preclinical into an expected first‑in‑human development program, but the source only states nomination, not completed trials [4]. For Alchemab, the PitchBook entry documents an investment but does not provide trial status in the available snippet; the public materials supplied do not include a company‑by‑company clinical status table for DDF’s entire portfolio [5]. Therefore, while some portfolio members are tied to specific trial milestones in DDF press items, the sources do not permit a complete, up‑to‑date inventory of each company and its active trial phase [3] [4] [5].
4. Why aggregates matter and where reporting falls short — alternative perspectives
DDF and SV Health Investors favour aggregate metrics (number of companies, programmes, people treated) in fundraising and impact narratives, a choice that highlights progress while preserving portfolio confidentiality and commercial stealth — a common VC practice that benefits deal economics but frustrates transparency for outside analysts [2] [1]. Independent databases (e.g., PitchBook) may fill gaps but require subscription access and still may lag clinical‑stage updates [5]. The available public reporting therefore supports firm claims that “many” DDF investments are in clinic and that DDF‑2 has already made initial investments, but it does not allow definitive, publicly sourced mapping of every DDF company to its current clinical status [2] [8] [1].