Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

Not surprising

[Momo25]

Need to hear from Speceo alike who used to over sell Th opportunities. When I said the market knows that everything TH said is not supported by material facts but speculation. 

tH is now clearly a company of legacy drug, not more. No one will put a penny on the Nash program neither.

[jeffm34]

TH isn't even that anymore. Marathon Asset Management owns the legacy drugs when TH defaults 

[SPCEO1]

I know everyone is distressed by the news on TH-1902 but the legacy drugs continue to sell well and if that continues and they get the one filing done, TH will actually be getting more money from Marathon in June 2023 to complete the financing of the convert redemption. The agreement for that to happen is already in place. So far I have seen analyst reports from Jones, Cantor and Research Capital

[qwerty22]

Colour me sceptical. So they are prepared to add a couple of years to this program rather than run this small trial 3 more months and see what comes from the last couple of enrolled patients? They aren't being forced to make this huge decision by safety, It's just a matter of efficacy fizzling out? The bar is pretty low for efficacy success at 2/10 responders. If they don't believe

[JayjayUSA12007]

Quote:"If they aren't being 'forced' to stop this by safety then I see no great harm in running this another few months to see what the full cohort tells you. It just sounds like a big decision to stop the trial and a relative small reason and solution. " I disagree with this assessment. We always know that Thera management is very, very conservative and risk adverse. IMO, I

[qwerty22]

It's definitely possible that  they've made learnings and this will help future plans, let's hope so. Conservatism could lead them not to jump too early just as much as it might have caused them to act. I think it's more likely material events (or lack of them) have driven them to act. I'm still struck by it being a huge decision and you'd need a pretty clear

[SPCEO1]

I think one can safely say they made this change because they were not getting the results required to move forward. If they kept going, they would be wasting our money. So, they made the sensible call to try another approach to see if they can find the results they originally expected.   

[Wino115]

I would agree with that assessment. I sniffed around and talked to some analysts and folks and here's what I gleaned. The analysts sort of say this too. It doesn't seem to be worse safety issues. What they saw was standard stuff for taxol and ADCs and at levels below standard IV infusion. THey had figured how to treat some of them successfully and lower doses showed lower issues; hence

[PinnacleX]

Thats the problem though, you cant let go.  Why try to look for something thats not there, this drug failed its simple. NASH failed nobody intrested, so now you have 2 drugs that are worth at best $1.00 per share. I guess your denial is alot worse then mine and youre sitting at way bigger loses then me.  Im curious do you own any other pharma stocks?

[SPCEO1]

TH is saying it is all about efficacy not being adequate, less about safety. IF safety was the issue, Isuspect they just would ahve shut the whole thing down. They don't talk about enrollemnt so you can safely assume it is pretty awful.  And it is likely pretty awful because not enough efficacy was seen so far so clinics were opting to put patients in other trials. I can imagine a

[qwerty22]

So do you want to say who you are getting all this from? And do you know if the company will go public with the nitty gritty? This doesn't quite add up. If enrolment was poor then where are they getting the data from to make this call? There has to be a minimum of patients to say "poor efficacy". I would have happily thought 3 or 4 cancers wouldn't end up being all that good

[SPCEO1]

I get info fromt he analyst reports and other people who are knowlegeable and then piece together some hypothoses which should be obvious from how I write it. Consider what I said educated guesses. I am sure we will get more info over time but a full blown conference call would have been a good call today. If all the patients are having similarly mild efficacy results in line with what was seen

[qwerty22]

"Efficacy results observed thus far were not convincing enough to pursue enrolling patients and did not outweigh the adverse events seen in some patients." That's what got a million shares dumped. And that seems a million miles from what you, Wino and the analysts are saying. If there is something positive here it wasn't in the PR. 

[scarlet1967]

Paul last CC: "Okay. Well, as you know, we have a basket trial now composed of 70 patients. We have targeted very specific tumors for which we know the, SORT1 expression is high. Now, we have a Fast Track designation, which allows us to have ongoing discussion with the FDA. So, we could modify this basket trial along the way we can. There are companies that are modifying their Phase 1b trials

[SABBOBCAT]

The other way to look at it is, this was an opportunity to share the tree so a friendly party can start to accumulate

[Mugen1996]

Still the same dog company than 10 years ago when i owned couple TH shares.  Funny to read that mr multi bagger is still around selling you dreams...

[mikeq113]

People and institutions sell for a multitude of factors both intrinsic to the stock and as a function of their overall asset allocation, weighting, performance and set of circumstances. It's what makes a market   I can say that as a retail investor here I've extended my investment horizon on this particular holding far beyond my initial hypothesis which was entirely based on

[realitycheck4u]

This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy

[juniper88]

About a year ago my wife and I made the choice to persue clinical trials (specifically TH1902) rather than the standard of care, which in her case would have been weekly Taxol, which as a response rate of about 20 to 30% (combined complete and partial response).  But duration of response is awful and the side effects are awful also.   Once everything 3 week Taxol doesn't work

[jfm1330]

At this time it is pointless to rely on preclinical data in order to find some releif. We are left in complete darkness about the data they have that would bring more clarity on the validity of the concept behind TH1902 in human patients. As I said a few days ago here, I had my second of two treatments with Lu177-Dotatate, my eigth treatment since 2017. So I asked my doctor to show me the scans

[realitycheck4u]

This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy

[SPCEO1]

You said "And now with lower and more frequent dosing, they will aim more at stable diseases than clear objective responses that would allow a fast approval." Based on what I have heard the company said, this is not what THTX is thnking. It seems they got some mild responses and are looking to tweek the dosing approach and the targeted cancers as wel as the relative health of the

[jfm1330]

Glad to see you seem to have more information than me, because part of what you say about better selecting cancer types and patients in better shape was not part of their PR yesterday. So some people sold today without knowing that if true, and still, personally I need to believe your info is true. I am not saying you are inventing it. I just say that I am down to believing somebody on Stockhouse,

[Wino115]

Some of that was "distributed" to the market via analyst reports. Some may be online by now and probably IR would send you a few to help understand it.  A few of the analyst reports mention it and say things like: "...the company continues to explore patient enrichment opportunities;"  so they discussed at least the general idea about patterns to help them optimize

[jfm1330]

Again, communications with shareholders, all shareholders is awful. If they have data proving that the concept is working, and that's it's only a matter of wrong patient selection, too ill, not overexpressing sortilin, resistant to docetaxel, then we should know it. It would change my view on this whole thing completely, but they are hiding information and I don't know why. At the

[jfm1330]

If a more frequent but smaller dose is a valid way to reduce side effects, it should also reduce efficacy. I am not an expert in PK/PD, an Thera disclosed nothing about that, except their unclear 10% of free docetaxel. So I don't see clearly why more frequent but smaller dose would a efficious as the 300 mg/m2 dose. Add to that the fact that we have no idea of how much docetaxel really goes

[Wino115]

I completely agree with you. Time to spend a lot more time on their next quarterly call doing just what you say. Put a context around the decision, outlook and what kind of general data led to the modifications.