RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Montreal's Ventus TherapeuticsAn alternative to an hypothetical oral peptide formulation, is a long acting intramuscular formulation. I can tell you from personnal experience since I take Sandostatin LAR since 2017. Sandostatin is a slow release IM formulation of octreotide. Octreotide alone needs to be injected subcutaneously three times a day, while Sandostatin LAR is the same peptide delivered by intramuscular injection every 4 weeks. I much prefer one injection in the buttock every 28 days to a pill once or twice a day. You get the injection evey 4 weeks, not painful at all, and your are good for almost a month. The only thing is that octreotide is an 8 amino acids peptide that is cyclic, so, in theory, more stable than the 44 amino acids long tesamorelin. So I don't know if a long acting formulation of tesamorelin would be possible. That being said, the technology for long acting IM formulations of peptides is there and publicly known since here in Canada a generic version of Sandostatin LAR was approved a few months ago.
PWIB123 wrote: In that case, I cannot imagine why anyone would choose this method over a pill due to ease of use and cost to administer, however, if you're already using Egrifta or needed something more direct, then it would make sense to use the current IV formula. It seems to me there's still a market for that, albeit smaller. Could we liken that to liquid vitamins versus pill form that has all kinds of fillers to create the solid state? Liquid vitamins more directly absorb into the body whereas the pill form loses much through the urine while trying to break it down with stomach acid. If the pen injector were to allow for self adminstration, maybe with enough volume they could get the cost down to make sense and people wouldn't have to use daily?
SPCEO1 wrote: It is not possible chemically to turn Egrifta into a pill.
PWIB123 wrote: We don't have a pill. That is all. What would prevent us from making a pill?
Bucknelly21 wrote: i think its a reasonable assumption that nash is fading away, maybe im wrong i hope i am but they dont talk much about it and the fact that they said they were in a strong position to negotiate i feel is a bit of a stretch, i have no data to support the comparison beside mdgl basically using a similar method as thtx and mdgl seems to be the front runner for first nash approval.
palinc2000 wrote:
I did not attempt to do a comparative analysis of the Nash data between the THTX and Ventus..
Can you share your findings?
Bucknelly21 wrote:
that's assuming you take paul for his word, not so sure i really do. If you have a company down the road with far less data safety ect sign a partnership you either arent having those talks or its just not a thing. And they need to stop acting as if they are trying.
palinc2000 wrote: Financial markets in research targeting Nash including merger and acquisition potential are in revival mode in the last few weeks/months ....and the last Corporate Presentation mentions ''Actively pursuing discussions with companies that have interest ,capabilities and resources''
qwerty22 wrote: Maybe "Not right now thanks" rather than never. But I think you've mostly got your expectations set right.
longterm56 wrote: If there is not enough interest in Egrifta for NASH to generate a partnership, do you really want THTX to go it alone? I'm sure big pharma has looked at it and has said, "no thanks". So why would they pursue it?
Lee430 wrote: If we did not have this potential high reward cancer platform would Thera have kept their eyes on the NASH prize and it would maybe be in PH3 by now instead of sending it to the time out chair?
Biobob wrote: I understand the frustration since I share it on a daily basis since 1998. I wprobably wont happen but we can hope a business update on October 13 delivers soemthing that makes Paul seemingly more verbal about Th1902...