Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Liminal BioSciences Inc. LMNL

Liminal BioSciences is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of novel, small molecule drug candidates for the treatment of patients suffering from fibrotic or inflammatory diseases that have a high unmet medical need. Liminal BioSciences operates on an integrated basis from our talent hubs in Laval, Quebec, Canada, and Cambridge, UK. Our common shares are listed for trading on the Nasdaq Global Market.


NDAQ:LMNL - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Comment by eric40on Feb 22, 2018 11:27pm
197 Views
Post# 27607053

RE:RE:its important to note that

RE:RE:its important to note thatTo Kenlu1: only about 11% of rejected BLA are CMC issues (Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls). 

CMC includes manufacturing but only a part of CMC rejection is due to manufacturing.

BLA's rejection reason

1-Efficacy deficiencies only: 31.8%
2-Safety and efficacy deficiencies: 27.2%
3-Safety deficiencies only: 25.8%
4-CMC alone: 11.3%
5-Labeling alone: 2.6%
6-CMC and labeling: 1.3%


Of the unsuccessful first-time applications, around (15.9%) included uncertainties related to dose selection, (13.2%) choice of study end points that failed to adequately reflect a clinically meaningful effect,  (13.2%) inconsistent results when different end points were tested, (11.3%) inconsistent results when different trials or study sites were compared, and (13.2%) poor efficacy when compared with the standard of care. This breaks downs of #1 and 2 includes also some safety concerns.

These statistic are based on a 10 year period. These number can change overtime.

For Plasminogene, walk in the park IMHO


Bullboard Posts