RE:RE:RE:RE:Trogarzo Press Release Today - No one?The only advantage of intramuscular injection is that it is quicker. A nurse is injecting me every 28 days with Sandostatin (LAR) a long acting formulation of the peptide octreotide. To get the full dose (60 mg) she gives me two injections in the high section of each buttock (2 x 30 mg). The pain of the injection is most of the time very weak. Then you have the feeling of two little bruises for two or three days. That's it.
But I also got an intraveinous drug for two months, stopped by my oncologist because of side-effects. These were just longer because it was a 30 minutes infusion with a pump, but it was not more painful as long as you have a good nurse to install the catheter.
All that to say that I don't see a big difference between the two methods, except time, and IV Push will make it much quicker. So i don't imagine a patient deciding to take Trogarzo because it will no longer be IV infusion. I would happily take an IV infusion every two weeks for the rest of my life if the drug would be very efficacious at keeping at bay a deadly disease.
SPCEO1 wrote: All of us would naturally prefer for the legacy drugs to sell better than than have. But they haven't and they most likely will not. It is rare when a drug finds growth can be restarted after a slow period. It typcially needs to be accompanied by some new development or it is just not going to happen. Perhaps TH's press release yesterday on Trogarzo will turn into something that restarts sales growth there but, unless the company provides some additional color on that possibility, no one is going to assume higher sales will be the result until it starts actually happening. Now, TH is certainly trying new things (internal sales force) with qulaified new people and without covid restrictions, so maybe we get a little bump, but a bigger bump typically requires some new clinical data that changes things drammatically for the old drug and injects new life into it. Trogarzo will also be getting a new IV Push administration option soon but I am going to guess this will only help at the margin until proven otherwise. At some point, Egrifta may be injected with a pen injector and that could be a bit more of a game changer for it.
TH management deserves credit for doing what they can to squeeze what is possible out of the legacy drugs. We just have to hope the costs associated with those more recent efforts are justified by what I think we should assume will be modest results until proven wrong.
Unless there was a sudden growth spurt in legacy drug sales that seemed sustainable over the logner term, which seems unlikely based on what we know roght now, investors are rightly focused on cancer. If cancer works, the upside is somewhere between "wonderful" and "amazing". If it doesn't work, the company will not go belly because of t he legacy drugs up but the stock price will suffer as very long term, extremely tired shareholders like Lee are not likely to stick around for cancer 2.0.
As a result, it is all about cancer.
scarlet1967 wrote: It's understandable for THTX's shareholders after disappointing valuation for the last long few years to look for a quick fix "oncology results", ignoring other assets cause it would/could take even longer for those operations to create added value.I do recall all the excitement for both Egrifta and Trogarzo followed by increasing valuation and it eventually faded as the sales didn't live up to expectations. Then NASH was the main focus and now the oncology. It's is very interesting how folks change their mind about the prospects of the company and yesterday's hero became today's zero. Point is if and when, possible and almost probable the sales of the legacy drugs start gaining traction then I think many start paying attention to those assets. Now when they announced Trogarzo is effective with other ARTs and safe nobody is interested but if you want to sell the drug the added therapeutic benefits is a good darn idea. We could say the same for Egrifta. Love to see the rejuvenated sale growth for both cause if materialized the company won't go "bust".
Lets see what will be the favourite subject next year sales?NASH?oncology? The ideal scenario would be if all of them will be successful and marketed properly followed by rapidly increasing valuation but we don't live in a perfect world so why shouldn't the company trying their very best having a go at every single of these value added and not value lost opportunities?
To me it is short sided to focus on one aspect of company's operations. Just imagine if this was your own business, would you pass on increasing revenues just because you are at phase 1 cancer trial stage? In my opinion they have to do what they have to do to increase the revenues regardless of oncology or NASH's progresses. Then of course spread the news effectively using all possible avenues in order to capitalize on their achievements thus higher/much higher valuation.