Antibe Therapeutics Inc(Pre-Merger) ATBPF

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Why is the price not going up?

[Actuarial]

If ATE-346 failed to meet WOMAC target (an average of 4.0 for NSAIDs), they are not going to pursue a lower dose. Drug development is somewhat similar to investment. In the investment, you would like to know investment frontier curve. Same here for drug development. You would like to build a curve with lowest dose but same efficacy. Obviously, 150mg is not, and something between 150mg and 200mg might be ton the frontier curve.

qwerty22 wrote:

There is a way to read WOMAC to get an idea of clinically significant pain reduction that can be used to compare drugs across trials, it's imperfect (like WOMAC itself) but it used repeatedly in the science literature. You might not want to see that but I do, and because I know Wallace and Legault are clever sods then I know that they know is method exists. So I have to assume they deliberately choose not to make that data public and I can't think of any positive reason for doing that.

When you combine that with the lower dose trial then not showing that data becomes even more significant. They are shifting the therapeutic window of this drug to lower doses, from what the CMO says in part to optimize the safety profile.  They have to maintain efficacy at those lower doses. So it's totally relevant to gauge the level of pain reduction at the present doses to see if they have the wiggle room to go lower.

Overall based on this PR I'd summarize that the therapeutic window for this drug is shifting towards lower doses. The lack of clarity on the efficacy and safety fronts means it's difficult to know whether that means the window has narrowed or just shifted. They could have re-assured the market by providing the data that showed the window was still wide, they didn't do that so my assumption going forward is that it has narrowed.

 

mstrmnd wrote: You are focusing on the wrong point.  This is a comparison between two means on a validated questionnaire for OA.  I suspect you were expecting something like "ATB-346 decreased WOMAC scores in the 200 mg group by 4 points (p = 0.007)".  

What if it was 3 points at p = 0.007?
What if it was 2 points at p = 0.007?
What if it was 1 point at p = 0.007?

It seems that you are trying to gauge relativity in the comparative efficacy between ATB-346 and naproxen.  If Naproxen reduces WOMAC by x, and ATB-346 reduces WOMAC by y, then you can compare x and y for relative analgesic properties.  This is not the study question and the reason why it wasn't released was likely due to this same reason analogy (the ring I mentioned is looking for any reason to tank this stock, and releasing what you are looking for is the obvious outcome that will occur).  

What people don't understand is that ATB-346 has just proven that it's the safest NSAID in the world and you don't need the differential between WOMAC scores to understand this.  This is why I disagreed with MUGS - even if it's analgesic (anti-pain) properties are not as strong as Naproxen - who cares.  99/100 people would rather take a less potent (not saying ATB-346 is less potent) NSAID with far superior GI safety.  If people just wanted something for pain, why doesn't everyone just start guzzling opioids?  The tradeoff between pain and GI safety is one that every doctor will be willing to compromise on.  Again not saying that ATB-346 is weaker than Naproxen, just stating why relative WOMAC scores comparing two means is misleading given some shareholders are looking for anything to harm the company to make a quick buck.

Hope that helps.

 

 

qwerty22 wrote:

The liver stuff isn't my main problem it's the lack of WOMAC data. That should be the counter-balance to the negativity is this PR. It's absence is worrying, it should be showcased.

 

woundedknee wrote: qwerty..not sure why you would be worried about "liver stuff'. Only one patient out 318 had any significant, but temporary LTEs.