Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

10% drop for what

[Trogarzon]

What a sh.tshow.

[Trogarzon]

Hey maybe it's because once they pay the remaining debenture they are left with like nothing in therm of cash.  Maybe it's because the never ending human factor study for Egrifta leaves a sword over our heads. Maybe it's the long awaited FDA go for the 1b continuation.  Maybe it's the non action a month after the board was almost overturned. Maybe it's because they

[Trogarzon]

Maybe like the others who voted to end this, I'm sick of this.

[Wino115]

You have spoken of a $.50 price target. Then you should just sell.

[Trogarzon]

After 25 years... put them in the casket will you... thx

[SPCEO1]

Most likely it is because someone is panicking on the basis of PTSD. THTX has caused a lot of trauma over the years. But think the fears you expressed are not correct or are unlikely to prove correct. THTX certainly has challenges but my sense is they have a legit shot at overcoming them. And with TH-1902, things could change for the better in a number of ways. Hang in there as it might turn out

[jfm1330]

Nothing on protocol for patient selection, have I missed something?

[SPCEO1]

"Patient selection has also been refined to focus on those who are less heavily pretreated, with no more than one taxane failure and a maximum of eight prior cancer treatment regimens." Not what you were hoping for but I imagine they think sortilin is overexpressed enough in ovarian cancer that there is limited utility in a screening for it before treatment?

[jfm1330]

Yeah, but it would be so useful to have this data to be able to corelate any efficacy with real sortilin expression. That's the big freakin hole in all of this story. I still don't understand how you can develop a targeted drug without precisely assessing the level of target expression and location. If this strategy is valid, efficacy is supposed to be dependant on the "quality"

[Joemare]

 high expression of SORT1 was found in >75% of the clinically annotated ovarian and endometrial tumors analyzed by immunohistochemistry. Other labs have shown similar results. So, likely a wise choice from their part.  

[SPCEO1]

On the poster it indicates that moderate to strong Sort1 expression (H score >100) was found in around 60% of the available patient biopsies. but ""data is insuffecient at this time to correlate efficacy with Sort1 expression". So, they did do an undetermined amount of biopsies. I find the 60% number to be lower than I would have thought. I imagine the FDA is going to want to

[Trogarzon]

Always waiting... the art of can kicking.  Also Akero is blasting past Egrifta like other competitors with 65% fat reduction vs 40% for our thing.

[SPCEO1]

If Akero is putting up those numbers then it sure seems like any money we spent on NASH may have been wasted. It may turn out to be a blessing in disguise that NASH never went forward as it would be hard to compete with 65% fat reduction.

[Mannequin]

This Investor call will be a DISASTER LIKE USUAL. And like last call too. They ask "Any questions?"   Then nothing.  The reason is that they have no clue how to set up a software system to make it easy to ask questions. It's always difficult. Actually it's always impossible. And then even when we did ask questions, they only answer one. It's stupid.  

[SPCEO1]

Normally, companies do not do investor calls to share negative info. Only good info. So, rational folks should expect the call to go well. the bottom line is we want to see success in the restarted trial and there is good reason to beleive we will with the new protocol. In the previous sub-optimal protocol, 6 ovarian cancer patients were recruited into t he trial, ! of the six had a partial

[jfm1330]

In the press release about phase I results, Marsolais is quoted saying this: "The early efficacy data for our lead peptide-drug conjugate, sudocetaxel zendusortide, confirm that it rapidly internalizes and hyper-targets delivery of cytotoxic payload directly into cancer cells," said Christian Marsolais, PhD, senior vice-president and chief medical officer at Theratechnologies. llll

[Joemare]

The half-life could be a problem and they have yet to put to rest this aspect.  

[SPCEO1]

Can you talk a bit more about this? Is the half lfe too long and may the FDA think the presence of Docetaxel in the bloodstream coould be the real reason for any efficacy seen? Is that your concern on the half-life?

[Joemare]

Issue with PDCs is their short half-life....it's not stable. So, they can internalize, but soon dissapate.   WOuld be a very scientific and medical question to ask and to see whether it concerns anyone on the panel (or even the FDA).

[qwerty22]

Looks like docetaxels half life is shorter than the PDC, measured in hours. ADC have half-lifes of a few days. So our PDC is somewhere inbetween, which is what you would expect. I don't think the half-life is necessarily problematic. I'm no expert in this field but I assume Christian now has data on which to judge a more optimal dosing regime (to maximize drug exposure). What that does to

[qwerty22]

They are quoting AUC ratio of The drug is not the greatest but I think they are making the right decisions given that premise. The broad, take all-comer and make no assumptions protocol of part 1 and 2 did it's job on delivering the safety data and a little efficacy. Enough to justify continuation. Now it's time for a much narrower, somewhat informed trial to get them over the

[qwerty22]

Yep, I was drawn to that. We are looking at 10 of the 18 patients having reasonable Sortilin levels. 7 different cancers enrolled. 60% is not as high as I would want but it's not terrible given the primary concern in part 1 is toxicity. The only cancer you might even start to think about Sortilin expression in the enrolled is ovarian with 6 patients, the fact they've homed in on that

[SPCEO1]

The poster also said that "Data, at this time, is not sufficient to correlate efficacy and sortilin expression." I was  encouraged by the "at this time" as I assume that refers to plans to rectify this situation.

[qwerty22]

It just means there aren't enough patients to see a signal in all the noise. If part 3 is successful maybe you see a pattern emerging. If they do an expansion part 4 maybe that pattern becomes clearer. I think it's just a numbers thing, they need more patients. My guess would be the data from just the present patients can't be investigated in different ways to show a relationship, if

[qwerty22]

The way I read this is they think they are awfully close to getting across the Ph1 finishing line it really is just a case of tweaking things. They've definitely focused on the best cancers based on responses from part 1 and 2 but it seems the biggest focus is on increasing drug exposure.  

[qwerty22]

Yep, no focus on sortilin, but endometrial had an average H score close to 200 and almost all were above 100. So they must have concluded this is not a limiting factor in this much narrowed trial.