Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
No question but until we see profitability a reverse split 95% of the time turns out bad.
The quotient only grows if they are in the black and showing a profit. If they are still losing money then the loss becomes even GREATER per share.
I am a couple of hundred miles north of that but it is interesting how intrinsic a role the Intercoastal Waterway plays in people's lives. Have lived on both sides and to the east you tend to live more of a beach type of life and west of it what some might call a more normal suburban life.
Good to hear. Can't remember if I knew you were from north of the border. I was born and raised in Montreal and although I have lived in Florida for a long time now, I still have some family north of the border. Hope you had a great Dominion Day (they don't call it that anymore I know).
Speaking of not hearing from Kiwi, it appears Pharmacydude has not been heard from for over 3 weeks. Hope all is well with both of them.
You are right and did they not have the same fear when they originally agreed to the SPA. I think they make up excuses as they go along.
I have to quickly say that I agree with JL and TORT that this trial needs to be strictly confined to first amendment and leave all the other stuff out so as to get a speedy and clear decision
If the SPA is viewed as a contract then I think your point has merit. There would be stipulations how the FDA could break the contract (new science info or safety issues) and I so tend to side with your idea that the onus would have to be on the party that broke the contract.
So how smart were they with their OUTperform???? While outperform the stock dropped a shytload.
Now after all that drop they are downgrading?? Morons or a game they play.
Check out the history of Élan. Did it twice
Two questions. The very first sentence of the abstract mentions a study that showed that EPA lowers the incidence of CVD. Here is the quote:
"A recent clinical trial revealed that highly purified eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), an n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, reduces the incidence of cardiovascular diseases."
First question is does anyone know what study they are referring to?
And secondly this study (which references the prior EPA study) was published in 2009, so if these people are aware of the benefits of EPA how the hell come the FDA does not know about it or recognize it??
You nailed it HD. Were you a fly on the wall of their war room??
JL I concur with you. I was only laying out the premises laid out by the FDA and by Amarin. Anxious to see what happens on the 10th.
I suppose I described it in another fashion but here is where I got it from in the article:
"In the FDA’s view, because Amarin seeks an order allowing it to distribute Vascepa “under circumstances which could establish that Amarin intends an unapproved new use for Vascepa,” its success “has the potential to establish precedent that would return the country to the pre-1962 era when companies were not required to prove that their drugs were safe and effective for each of their intended uses.”
Thanks Zu. After reading the article and trying to boil it all down I think of it this way:
Amarin says that not permitting them to disseminate truthful information is violating their 1st amendment rights.
The FDA says that if Amarin disseminates information about an indication for V that has not been approved by the FDA and the court permits it that it would violate or invalidate the Act that established the FDA and their powers.
Well. many laws passed into law have been ruled unconstitutional and so be with the Act that established the FDA.
STS you made me chuckle when you mentioned fat burners.
For so many years I would have people (most but not all women) look at a bottle on the shelf (in the diet section) and say "Does it work?". And, I would respond "YOU have to do the work".
The look on their faces was usually priceless. Needless to say I probably scared off a bunch and sold less than those people who told them that they would look like Marilyn Monroe in 2 weeks.
Are you calling Amarin garbage?
James, agree with everything in your post but I believe we are talking about two different things. My comments were related to comments about V being prescribed to treat diabetes....like glucophage or glyburide. To do that V would have to go through trials with diabetics and show that their blood sugar returns to normal levels while on V. Not talking about treating them for cardiovascular disease, which obviously will be the case if Reduce-It is successful.
Robin this all stems from the law passed in 1994 called DSHEA. Of course some manufacturers cross the line and simply not enough enforcers to catch all violators immediately. But some claims are definitely allowed based on that law. That is also why all supplements carry the disclaimer that "These statements have not been .....by the FDA... and are not to treat, diagnose, or cure and disease". This gives the info:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/DietarySupplements/ucm103340.htm
To answer you I would have to defer to someone much more knowledgeable about the ways of the FDA but if Reduce-It is successful I am under the impression that approval of V would be as an add-on to statins to help reduce CV events, even if a good portion of Reduce-It subjects are diabetics.
JL, I don't believe STS is claiming that V is a not very good drug for T2 diabetics, but only that it will not receive that indication on a label without some lengthy and costly trials and that off label scrips for that indication would not be as large as some think.
Both you and STS are correct. Your point is better taken, because although I am a guy that abhors anecdotal evidence, I have seen too many examples (within and outside of family) of people doing and eating the right things and still have a stubbornly low HDL and vice versa some would have terrible habits and have HDL levels bordering near 100.
eating the right things and still have a stubbornly low HDL and vice versa some would have terrible habits and have HDL levels bordering near 100.
There is no doubt in my mind that some people might be genetically very resistant to raising their HDL levels by following the correct diet and exercise. For sure there are others that would respond well to that advice.
There is no doubt in my mind that some people might be genetically very resistant to raising their HDL levels by following the correct diet and exercise. For sure there are others that would respond well to that advice.
We have an expert on all that fraud here in Florida
JL. Hope you are right about this court correcting that misconception by the FDA. But beyond that supplements can make structure/function claims as long as they put a little box that says: " these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease".
Just in. Supremes vote 6-3 for ACA
That argument makes perfect sense and is the most logical, however I worry that the FDA could claim that their hands are tied. First they might say that they have been regulating drugs the same way for years based on the powers granted them and then they have been forced to permit some claims for DS that they cannot do anything about.
Of course their hands may be tied in relation to the DS but surely the logical thing is to permit truthful statements concerning drugs even if it is for off-label use, because they are already being forced to do so much more for the DS.
Thanks BB. Sneaky little slime bags.
Good luck with your father-in-law.
That AF thing has bothered me for awhile. There is a very small chance that he got lucky with his prediction but my bet is that he knew something. Did he know that they would change the question at the last minute???
If the question had been about V lowering trigs with acceptable side effects there is no way anyone could have voted NO.
Most of the negative studies cited either use a low dose of Epa in combo with dha or have other issues with the study. Like the one that was referenced as #2 blood levels of epa only increased by 37%. However having said that it is hard to be absolutely sure of any one particular study.
I would love to see the pps rise into data release and give me the difficult decision to take some off the table.
Also what I would like to know is how much had Amarin already spent on Reduce-It by the time of the Anchor decision?? Didn't they already have more than 60% enrolled. Why would someone stop a trial after sinking that much cash into it??? Wouldn't Amarin be able to make far more money with Vascepa if it had a successful result in an outcome trial like Reduce-It?
This idea the FDA is putting forth that Amarin would have shuttered the Reduce-It trial does not wash with me.
BB, yes that confused me to all get out. If the attorneys could not stop the FDA from sending that out I doubt that they are in control.
Is the buoyancy in the stock price this morning due to the news about the in vivo study about cholesterol crystalline domain levels or related to some speculating that something positive might come from the FDA response today --- ala RAF?
STS, you are right about the numerous contradictory statements.
Besides the ones you highlighted, right at the beginning they say this:
"Levels do matter, but no trials of triglyceride-lowering have been done."
And then throughout the article they mention studies where levels of triglycerides were tied to various levels of CV risk. AND then like you mentioned they say this:
"In general, the risk of death from cardiovascular disease is 25% higher with triglyceride levels above 200 mg/dL than with levels below 150 mg/dL.6 Hypertriglyceridemic phenotypes, most notably dysbetalipoproteinemia and mixed hyperlipidemia, may be particularly atherogenic in the presence of other risk factors for cardiovascular disease.7"
So where are they getting the risk of death being 25% higher with trigs higher than 200 unless there have been some outcome studies --- or that information gleaned from studies that may not have been particularly designed to study trigs but those are the results gleaned from those studies.
Sts, now that makes sense. As soon as insurers become convinced that this test is valid and supported by solid science and will save them money in the long run they will embrace it.
JL fully agree and Reduce-It results will have a far greater impact on the stock price than the 1st amendment case IMHO.
BC thanks also for the update but what if the abstract is not adopted?
Does it imply the results of the study were poor and if results not presented at Nov meeting will we ever see the results?
Raf, I really thing the scenario you outline very rarely occurs. By that I mean that the DMC declares a safety issue because the drug is working too well. They don't really know that until the results (at interim) are examined.
I believe for most intents and purposes the safety issue that is alluded to is if reports surface about really bad side effects/reactions within the study.
http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm127069.htm
Conflicts of interest deserve special consideration in choosing individuals to serve on a DMC. The most obvious conflict is financial interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the trial. (See Section 6 for further discussion. See also Department of Health and Human Services, Financial Relationships and Interests in Research Involving Human Subjects: Guidance for Human Subject Protection, available at >>http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/finreltn/fguid.pdf.)
Investigators entering subjects into the trial have a different type of conflict of interest—their knowledge of interim results could influence their conduct of the trial. An investigator who is aware of early trends might change his or her pattern of recruitment, or modify his or her usual way of monitoring the status of participants. We therefore recommend that DMC members for a given trial not include investigators in that trial.
Individuals known to have strong views on the relative merits of the interventions under study may have an "intellectual" conflict of interest and might not be able to review the data in a fully objective manner; such individuals may therefore not be optimal DMC members. We recommend that sponsors avoid appointing to a DMC any individuals who have relationships with trial investigators or sponsor employees that could be considered reasonably likely to affect their objectivity.
We recommend that sponsors establish procedures to:
Assess potential conflicts of interest of proposed DMC members;
Ensure that those with serious conflicts of interest are not included on the DMC;
Provide disclosure to all DMC members of any potential conflicts that are not thought to impede objectivity and thus would not preclude service on the DMC;
Identify and disclose any concurrent service of any DMC member on other DMCs of the same, related or competing products.
The sponsor often appoints the DMC chair, but may seek advice from trial investigators or trial steering committee members. Prior DMC experience is more important for the chair than for other DMC members, as members will look to the chair for leadership on administrative as well as scientific issues. Sponsors will typically want to select a chair who is capable of facilitating discussion, integrating differing points of view, and moving toward consensus on recommendations to be provided to the sponsors. Sponsors may also want to be assured that a potential chair is willing to make a firm commitment to participate for the duration of the trial (or for the term of the appointment, for chairs of DMCs monitoring multiple trials).
4.2. Confidentiality of Interim Data and Analyses
As described in 21 CFR 314.126(b)(5) (drugs) and 21 CFR 860.7(f)(1) (devices), sponsors of well-controlled studies should take appropriate measures to minimize bias.3 Knowledge of unblinded interim comparisons from a clinical trial is generally not necessary for those conducting or sponsoring the trial; further, such knowledge can bias the outcome of the study by inappropriately influencing its continuing conduct or the plan of analyses. Unblinded interim data and the results of comparative interim analyses, therefore, should generally not be accessible by anyone other than DMC members or the statistician(s) performing these analyses and presenting them to the DMC (see id.). Consistent with 21 CFR 314.126(b)(5) (drugs) and 21 CFR 860.7(f)(1) (devices), sponsors should establish written procedures, which may be included in the DMC charter, to ensure the minimization of bias, such as maintaining confidentiality of the interim data (see Section 4.3.1.4). Sponsors may, of course, also address such confidentiality issues in written agreements between the sponsor and members of the DMC as well as written agreements between the sponsor and investigators.
Even for trials not conducted in a double-blind fashion, where investigators and patients are aware of individual treatment assignment and outcome at their sites, the summary evaluations of comparative unblinded treatment results across all participating centers would usually not be available to anyone other than the DMC. Section 6 addresses the particular confidentiality issues for the statistician/statistical team performing the interim analyses.
4.2.1. Interim Data
Interim comparative data, whether treatment assignment is revealed or coded, will be most securely protected from inadvertent or inappropriate access by the sponsor or its project team if the data are prepared for analysis by a statistical group that is independent of the sponsor and investigators—that is, the group is not otherwise involved in the trial design or conduct and has no financial or other important connections to the sponsor or other trial organizers (see Section 6). The lead investigators, the study steering committee, and/or the sponsor generally develop the analytical plan (often collaboratively), but problems can arise when these same individuals are involved in the actual preparation of the interim results, for reasons discussed in Section 6.4. They may, however, work with the statistician who will be preparing and presenting the interim analyses prior to the first analysis of unblinded data to develop a template for the interim reports. Procedures should be established to safeguard confidential interim data from the project team, investigators, sponsor representatives, or anyone else outside the DMC and the statistician(s) performing the interim analyses (see 21 CFR 314.126(b)(5) (drugs) and 21 CFR 860.7(f)(1) (devices)).
Although assigning responsibility for interim analysis to individuals employed by the sponsor is generally discouraged, such assignment may be appropriate if sufficiently secure procedures are in place to credibly ensure that the results of such analyses are not revealed to other sponsor employees or to anyone other than DMC members. We recommend that a description of such procedures be included in the DMC charter (see Section 4.3).
4.2.2. Interim Reports to the DMC
We recommend that any part of the interim report to the DMC that includes comparative effectiveness and safety data presented by study group, whether coded or completely unblinded, be available only to DMC members during the course of the trial, including any follow-up period—that is, until the trial is completed and the blind is broken for the sponsor and investigators. If interim reports are shared with the sponsor, it may become impossible for the sponsor to make potentially warranted changes in the trial design or analysis plan in an unbiased manner (see Section 6.3). Even aggregate data on safety and efficacy may be informative; these data may be needed for some trial management functions (e.g., sample size adjustments, centralized endpoint assessment), but are best limited to those who cannot otherwise carry out their trial management responsibilities.
In some cases (for example, in open-label trials with special concerns about safety), there may be a rationale for the sponsor and/or investigators to have access to the ongoing comparative safety data to ensure continuous monitoring. Such access should be specified and justified in the study protocol and understood by the DMC (see 21 CFR 314.126(b)(5) (drugs) and 21 CFR 860.7(f)(1) (devices)).
In many cases, the DMC receives reports in two parts: an "open" section, which presents data only in aggregate and focuses on trial conduct issues such as accrual and dropout rates, timeliness of data submission, eligibility rates and reasons for ineligibility; and a "closed" section, in which the comparative outcome data are presented. The open section of these reports is usually provided to sponsors, who may convey any relevant information in these reports to investigators, IRBs, and other interested parties, as the data presented in the "open" section are not likely to bias the future conduct of the trial and are often important for improving trial management.
GG I understand what you are saying but a number of articles I have read are mentioning insurers are balking at covering this procedure. They profit from premiums but don't profit on the spending for all other kinds of expensive treatment options so don't believe what you laid out would apply to them.
BB. Thanks. I was aware of the first regulatory letter to narrow the scope but was not aware that the amicus briefs were the reason for the second.
I would be tempted not to answer the call from the FDA but would be interested in any message they left on the answering machine!!! LOL
You have been an unbelievable driving force here
GG, I have read about the coronary calcium scan, but apparently some insurers are not on board. Any information in the documentary about why insurers have shunned the test?
Subscribe to Ad free and enjoy an ad-free experience
Try Now
Keep the Ads