Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

Alternate Symbol(s): THTX

Healthcare Biotechnology

Theratechnologies Inc. is a Canada-based clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the development and commercialization of therapies addressing unmet medical needs. It markets prescription products for people with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) in the United States. The Company's research pipeline focuses on specialized therapies addressing unmet medical needs in HIV, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and oncology. Its medicines include Trogarzo and EGRIFTA SV (tesamorelin for injection). Trogarzo (ibalizumab-uiyk) injection is a long-acting monoclonal antibody which binds to domain 2 of the CD4 T cell receptors. It blocks viral entry into host cells while preserving normal immunologic function. The Company is also investigating an intramuscular method of administration of Trogarzo. EGRIFTA SV (tesamorelin for injection) is approved in the United States for the reduction of excess abdominal fat in people with HIV who have lipodystrophy.

TSX:TH - Post by User

Theratechnologies Inc > How Barclays Capital values Small Cap Oncology names

<< Previous

Bullboard Posts

Next >>

Comment by Spartrapon Feb 04, 2021 3:17pm

90 Views

Post# 32472817

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:How Barclays Capital values Small Cap Oncology names

jfm1330 wrote: One thing is sure, Thera is not using the same linker. But it is a good reminder that it is still at the research stage, that is why we need hard facts on humans.

Right, there are 2 methyl groups on that glutaryl on the TH compound IIRC, so hopefully more stable.. hopefully it makes all the difference. I agree with Wino some input from the CMO would be great
It's such a critical component, it must be mighty hard to tune.
There might be other factors too, such as the time to internalization from activating the sortilin receptor vs the LHGH receptor (is that one even triggering internalization?)

jfm1330 wrote: Also, an advantage of exploring the radioisotopes is the fact that no cleavable linker is needed with these. The isotopes don't need to be free inside the cell to emit radiations.

Wow, that's a great point indeed.. this plus the actinium 225 improvement, I'm actually starting to like your idea, inspite of the demanding supply chain!

jfm1330 wrote:
Wino115 wrote: Sure, always the risk -- the human response. I'm not remotely qualified to discuss pros and cons of different cleavable links and homing receptors so will leave that up to you scientifically minded. I know the science has progressed a lot in last few years according to the PDC primer (I didn't even see a discussion on this linker), but THTX needs to prove it all up. I guess one thing I like is that each tumor type and cancer type is a bit different, expressing different chemical's and cellular structures, so while they could all fail, I still like the fact they have at least 4 shots on goal with these different tumor's, maybe a fifth if they get the melanoma study done, and then more with TH1901. But caution, as you say, is warranted.

These would be good questions to get to CMO - what is their understanding of the linker versus the failed one in Zoptarelin? If anyone checks in with him, be interested to hear an answer.

Spartrap wrote: It's a bit mean to do so today, but let me bring forward the sad story of Zoptarelin Doxorubicin, just to keep our enthusiasm in check: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoptarelin_doxorubicin Passed P1 and P2 with flying colors just to miserably fail in P3. Apparently, the linker wasn't solid enough and tended to break too early within the more acidic Tumor Micro Environment.. Ended up being not superior or safer than Doxorubicin alone ;-/

Wino115 wrote: I So you may almost be able to have a 50-75% probability of success after Phase 1. This shows one of the benefits of a peptide versus an antibody approach.