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.
Right, NB1222 is probably similar though. Doubt they've been able to extend duration without compromising efficacy.
My research wasn't as thorough as it should have been, I only looked into bioavailability and was surprised/concerned that the research was that old. Concerned that the formulation wasn't successfully commercialized and then realizing the patent filed in 1993 had expired.
However, after reading your post today I found a chart that you no doubt have already seen comparing plasma concentrations among three subjects who were administered THC-HS suppositories. It's on page 132 of the book "Marihuana and Medicine"
https://books.google.ca/books?id=AYH5BwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Higher peak/shorter duration of action than NB1222. Just like NB1111 (same prodrug as NB1222, THC-VHS) their prodrugs have a lower effect but longer duration of action. So I'm not concerned with the expired patent, but still a bit skeptical if NB1222 will be commercialized. The formulation Elsohly patented in 1993 was good, but there's a lot more attention on the cannabinoid space now.
I should have said "may not have patent protection".
I just looked at an old presentation from June 2015 and noticed that Nemus explicitly mentioned that the line chart was a comparison between Marinol and a DHS suppository (dronabinol hemisuccinate) that they didn't license. Now they're using the exact same chart (page 22 of latest presentation) but calling it a comparison between dronabinol (which is fine) and their prodrug THC-VHS. You don't think that's strange? They're giving us data on a old prodrug that no longer has patent protection. If they've made improvements, they definitely aren't communicating it at all.
It was an excerpt from 'the pot book' published in 2010, the interview was probably from a year or two earlier.
“It’s an excellent preparation, a good product, but because it is a suppository, some people have a really hard time accepting it as a delivery system, although it is pharmaceutically acceptable and it’s been around for years,” ElSohly tells Holland in the book. “But it’s still not out there yet. The pharmaceutical company has it, and hopefully they’ll approve it before too long.”
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2010/10/12/pot-up-the-pooper-government-doc-crafts-weed-suppositories
Not sure which pharma or what approval he was referring to, but it obviously wasn't Nemus. As I said before, the research goes back to the early 90s, Nemus didn't give the proper source in their presentation because they may not have wanted the research to look old. Elsohly has or had a deal with Mallinckrodt to produce extracts for their generic dronabinol, if that wasn't the company he was referring to, why didn't he license it directly to them? If it was, then what happened?
I can tonight, not hard to find on google though.
Possibly. I don't know the extent of their IP and how it compares with what else is out there. I know they've created a highly synergistic cannabinoid cocktail (that I assume is treating skin infections), but the bactericidal activity of cannabinoids against drug resistant bacteria including MRSA was discovered ~10 years ago. I'm sure the researchers who discovered it have strong IP.
Speaking of facts and homework, in the presentation for CINV, on page 22 they list their source for ~70% bioavailability as 'Nemus Internal Data', but I found it in a research paper Elsohly co-authored from the early 1990s. I also read an interview (pre-Nemus) where he mentioned the suppository formulation was with a pharma. I know Elsohly is extracting THC to sell to Mallinckrodt to manufacture generic dronabinol. I assume that was the company he was referring to. I wonder why that ostensibly fell through.
I meant to say they haven't tested in vivo. They wouldn't know fic without in vitro. My point was it's early and there are competitors which nobody has acknowledged that are further along, so how could I give a valuation for their MRSA potential at this stage. I don't even know what their IP is, is it just for skin infections?
No, cure not prevention.
*lugdunin
Ludgunin and far-UVC light have been sucessfully tested in vivo and look promising. Salt regulation is early and I think their initial focus is foodborne illness. I read about a molecule PEG-2S in the news recently, effective in vitro against a number of infections, not sure if MRSA is one of them but it was an interesting read.
I missed this message. What legal way is there to invest with material information that would affect sp?
Regarding MRSA, it's too early for me to speculate, they haven't even done in vitro studies. There are also a number of potential therapies in development such as lugdunin, UV light, salt regulation, etc.
Obviously Schneider wouldn't have invested if they didn't think a deal would be signed. Not semantics, my main objection was that you suggested Schneider invested with material information about a deal. A deal could be announced anytime, if it happens at all. To speculate about their exit is pointless.
"Schneider signed a non-disclosure and got to see and hear everything." After the fact, but they didn't invest because they knew a deal was imminent. Besides, if a deal were to be signed before phase 1 which is at least 8 months away, they wouldn't have raised so much, so soon.
It wasn't the valuation, but that he thinks Schneider was expecting a 50x+ return. That's not how it works at all.
Schneider didn't invest with inside information. To suggest they're looking to turn 20mm into 1b+ is also ludicrous.
Sublingual isn't oral. It avoids first pass effect, though some probably does get swallowed.
Sublingually (under the tongue), like Sativex.
They already had patent approval in Japan. Regardless, the PR said the majority of Asians suffer from normotensive glaucoma. That's very true for Japanese, but not Chinese/South Asians where primary angle closure glaucoma is much more prevalent. Normotensive glaucoma is a form of primary open angle glaucoma.
Definitely, but they've been messing around a lot more on the bid side than the ask.
Of course, significantly more important than marketing to retail level, but they have done that as well.
We were talking about the cannabis investor community.
Many already know. They've presented at cannabis investors conferences, they show up on investment blogs, they've put out a steady amount of PRs, etc. They aren't hard to find at all, in the space. The fact they're focussed on cannabinoids has given them a lot more exposure than if they just presented themselves as a biopharmaceutical company. Maybe it has reversed, time will tell.
Most people in the cannabis space already know about NMUS. Technical analysis is meaningless here. The fact that the SP has recovered a bit is because of the financing.
OK...
Why are you posting a press release from 2016?
I was referring to NB1222.
Most likely. Insys filed an NDA for their dronabinol sublingual spray in Aug 2014 and expect to release it this year.
Not sure why Nemus is going with rectal delivery over sublingual, transdermal, or buccal (though it has been mentioned) - all of which avoid first pass effect. Suppositories have low patient acceptance.
If include the shares from the financing then the cap is about $30mm, not including warrants/options.
NB1212 will be cheaper. Trials for the other candidates are years away.
NB1111 phase 1b/2a was only costed at $1.8 mm.
It's because of the dilution. Shares now represent 60% less of the company. They needed capital, but a $20 million raise seems very excessive especially when the company is trading near lows and has short/medium term catalysts for share appreciation. It probably wasn't their idea, the affiliate of Schneider Brothers probably wanted majority ownership. Not sure why they didn't look for what they needed, which I seriously doubt is $20m when the last two years they have been spending ~500k, and then raise more if necessary after they've furthered their pipeline and built shareholder value.
Yes, they referenced a previous study which used a rat model of glaucoma. I don't know if it's been reproduced or studied in another animal. From what I recall, Ole Miss only mentioned that THC-VHS reached the retina choroid. It needs much more research.
Brimonidine and alpha-2-adrenergic agonists are also neuroprotective in experimental models of glaucoma.
Thanks Anton. Timolol reduces production of aqueous humour, and Pilocarpine indirectly increases aqueous outflow through the trabecular meshwork. Prostaglandins increase aqueous outflow but through the uveoscleral pathway. They think the potential mechanism of IOP reduction by THC is by increased aqueous outflow through the trabecular meshwork which is responsible for the majority of outflow. Rho-kinase inhibitors and adenosine agonists have been clinically studied for years to target trabecular outflow, I'm not sure if any have been submitted for approval. Combinations are always a possibility - Nicox combined nitric oxide with latanoprost to create Vesneo to also target the trabecular meshwork.
I was mistaken about the prospectus. It isn't a secondary offering by existing shareholders, just registration of common stock for resale. It was my mistake, I should have read it more carefully.
Vinpat - with respect, there's more risk than simply whether or not they can raise capital (their independent accounting firm expressed significant doubt about their ability to continue as a going concern). I can't agree that their IP is more valuable than any other company in the sector. I've yet to research NB1222 (I will this week), but regarding NB1111, THC-VHS in Tocrisolve was compared against Timolol and Pilocarpine in an a-chymotrypsin induced rabbit glaucoma model. They didn't make a comparison to a Prostaglandin such as Latanoprost - which outperforms Timolol and has been the gold standard in glaucoma treatment for years (likely to be overtaken by Vesneo).
THC-VHS performed similar (albeit with increased intensity) to Pilocarpine - greater peak IOP reduction than Timolol but with a shorter duration of action. Pilocarpine was the most common glaucoma drug before Timolol was introduced, though I believe it is still used in combination. In a normotensive rabbit model THC-VHS-SLN certainly outperformed Timolol, in terms of both intensity and duration. However, I haven't come across a study where THS-VHS-SLN was tested and compared in an a-chymotrypsin induced rabbit glaucoma model. I also wonder how nanoparticle delivery could improve pre-existing glaucoma medications.
I read this in the prospectus I referenced earlier (the resale by shareholders of up to 25,585,663 shares of common stock, which doesn't help investor confidence):
"Administration of NB1111 resulted in a 45% reduction in IOP from baseline with a half-life consistent with five to six-times per day dosing. When NB1111 was administered via SLN delivery, the lower concentration of NB1111 (0.4% equivalent THC) exhibited a decrease in IOP of approximately 20% while the higher concentration of NB1111 (0.6% equivalent THC) lowered IOP by a maximum of 35%. The use of SLN technology lengthened the physiologic half-life of NB1111 equivalent to dosing the drug two to three times a day."
35% peak IOP reduction with two to three daily doses is not a game changer, IMO. I also realise there may be neuroprotective effects, but haven't seen any hard data on that. Alphagan is also believed to slow optic nerve degeneration. That's not to say NB1111 won't be marketable. I just think people should have realistic expectations. As it stands, the launch probability at phase 1 is ~25%. Obviously low from an investor's standpoint, but high from a researcher's standpoint.
True - it's on a terrible exchange which is the first red flag, but there's a lot of pumping, which is fine, but unfortunately little constructive discussion. If he thinks it's going to $10, maybe he doesn't know it's highly speculative.
Many of the risks are no different than previous prospectuses. The latest (secondary offering) was simply the most relevant. I briefly looked at this stock nearly 2 years ago after discovering the cannabis market, invested in SL instead. I only started to really look into NMUS this week, though I feel I have a good idea of what's going on.
Read it top to bottom, you'll probably have the same concerns as I do. I have no intentions of bashing, I know people can become emotionally invested and I don't want to get in any arguments. However, people should realise this is gambling, not investing.
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=74168480#NEMUS_424B3_HTM_DETERMINATION OF OFFERING PRICE
What makes you so confident? Read the latest prospectus from the secondary offering in its entirety, this is a highly speculative stock with a significant amount of risk.