RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Uphill battle in NASH for THAnd yes sales of the legacy drugs, I get it the programs if and when showing progresses are the main value drivers but the company isn't in control of those programs successes or failures. The way I see it the new marketing strategies of drugs reaching directly to their targeted patients/doctors using electronic communication for instance advertising in patient electronic journals/apps, convincing both parties the drugs are cost effective etc didn't have a chance to fully impact the sales due to the pandemic. I would expect post pandemic we could see a spike in sales due to pending demand and continued growth in the medium to long term. The new recruits with marketing skills, IV/IM Trogarzo and F8 also will be helping the sales. The better revenues the less need for sooner/larger cash rise to fund the programs also it will buy them some time in case they go down the partnership route.
scarlet1967 wrote: Oncology will be if successful the first catalyst for the stock, we should have some safety and probably preliminary efficacy results soo
but I believe they should keep the NASH relevant for eventualities...
I think as you said to add interim bio markers read out to NASH would also be a great idea for many reasons...
Wino115 wrote: Good discussion and I don't have much to add as you all covered it. It does sound like it would be highly worthwhile for the company to define in the protocol an interim read on some of the various markets, without having to do a biopsy. Between MRI-PDFF (which Loomba advocates) and other blood markers, etc... they could provide a reasonable proximity to Phase 2B type data for drug and placebo. Given the length of the trial, it would be highly worthwhile.
From an investment perspective, I don't think we'll see "the market" or analysts like that change their views on the NASH program much. Thankfully we have oncology moving rapidly ahead and maybe we see a nice bump in revenues to modest growth again. Oncology is my focus from an investment return perspective now.
scarlet1967 wrote: They have the backing of KOLs and FDA, seems like the EMA will be onboard as well as per the CEO based on, targeted proteomic, transcriptomic approach, organic approach which works upstream by stimulating the pituitary glands to produce normal timed secretion of growth hormone which directly reduces visceral fat, decreases lipogenesis, decreases triglyceride accumulation, decreases oxidative stress and inflammation, improves mitochondrial function and indirectly GH stimulates endogenous production of IGF-1 in the liver resulting in decreases insulin resistance, decreases oxidative stress and inflammation, deactivates hepatic stellate cells (liver cells that contribute to fibrosis) , also no overstimulation of GH like thyroid approach “the totality of data”.
So their science is differentiate from the current NASH trials which one by one is failing thus far. The analyst’s comments is based on what he knows and seen so far from other trials and MOAs, he can’t comment on a new approach as it never been tried or observed therefore to me unless their science/approach is understood these comments are less relevant, some of the remarks re translatability of data doesn’t make sense. They know traditionally they should have more biopsy confirmed F2/F3 patients but they seem to have dealt with that issue based on the strength of other aspects of their innovative MOA as they got the go ahead from FDA so far. I believe in order for their NASH to get recognition it deserves getting EMA onboard will be helpful together with some more webinars presented by KOL to put THTX in the spot light as a new but serious contender in the space. The company would never commit to an expensive and long trial if they hadn’t done a risk reward analysis based on economics and probabilities of success. Now they need to educate the market as they educated themselves since the start of the process.