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.
Perhaps this is an e*Trade thing? I only have a few shares.
just received my Proxy material - UPS 2nd day
I think that people are interested to see the triple negative breast data at AACR. I know I am!
FDA will post 2 days after the official approval date.
This was today's announcements by the FDA;
New and Generic Drug Approvals
July 11, 2016
Drug Name Active Ingredient Dosage Form/Route Sponsor Submission Type
Alinia
nitazoxanide Tablet;Oral Romark Labeling Revision
Alinia
nitazoxanide For Suspension;Oral Romark Labeling Revision
Brovana
arformoterol tartrate Solution;Inhalation Sunovion Manufacturing Change or Addition
Furadantin
nitrofurantoin Suspension;Oral Shionogi Inc Manufacturing Change or Addition
Juxtapid
lomitapide mesylate Capsule;Oral Aegerion Manufacturing Change or Addition
Vilazodone Hydrochloride
vilazodone hydrochloride Tablet;Oral Teva Pharms Usa Tentative Approval
Xiidra
lifitegrast Solution/Drops; Ophthalmic Shire Dev Llc Approval
I agree with you. The FDA recently added a new ADCOM for analgesics on August 8th and it will only discuss an extended release morphine tablet. From what I read from the FDA guidance an ADCOM will not be needed for SequestOX.
From the FDA website...
The FDA will consult an advisory committee on abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) opioids when they raise novel issues.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/FactSheets/ucm484714.htm
That's the date for either Yes, your approved or no we need more information. NH said on the call today that the FDA has all the information that they have requested so that's good. The action date will also me when the FDA gives Elite information about what needs to be included in the label.
sorry, I don't post much here. Follow the link in my message to the FDA website to read it in black and white.
Elaborate....
The merger of Epic and PuraCap was to bring Epic's generic business over to PuraCap. As I understand it, all Epic employees are moving over as well and PuraCap seems interested in the pain management sector in the US. They already have generic pain management franchise in China. I believe that the Epic/Elite deal will stand with PuraCap.
From the merger press release...
The acquisition of Epic will provide a robust generic product portfolio which includes tablets, 2-piece capsules and powder dosage form products as well as a future product portfolio that will include a series of controlled drug substances. Humanwell and PuraCap will acquire Epic's balanced and diversified portfolio, which currently consists of 15 marketed generic products and a pipeline of 37 products, and this acquisition will complement PuraCap's own R&D efforts by utilizing Epic's strengths in the manufacture and development of controlled drug substances and powder formulations. The Epic acquisition will also add a US FDA & DEA inspected GMP manufacturing footprint of 110,000 square feet in Laurelton, New York, and result in the addition of 215 employees to the Humanwell and PuraCap US Operations Team
This is the PDUFA action date. It's a deadline for the FDA to approve new drugs. The FDA is normally given 10 months to review new drugs. If a drug is selected for priority review, the FDA is allotted 6 months to review the drug. They FDA doesn't always stick to action dates, but often do.
From the FDA website. I doubt that we will have an advisory committee meeting prior to the action date.
The FDA is deeply concerned about the growing epidemic of opioid abuse, dependence and overdose in the United States. In response to this crisis, the agency has developed a comprehensive action plan to take concrete steps toward reducing the impact of opioid abuse on American families and communities. As part of this plan, the agency is committing to work more closely with its advisory committees before making critical product and labeling decisions; enhancing safety labeling; requiring new data; and seeking to improve treatment of both addiction and pain. At the same time, the FDA will fundamentally re-examine the risk-benefit paradigm for opioids and ensure that the agency considers the wider public health effects. The FDA is committed to taking all of these steps transparently and in close cooperation with its sister agencies and stakeholders.
The FDA’s actions include:
Expand use of advisory committees. Starting today, the FDA will convene an expert advisory committee before approving any new drug application for an opioid that does not have abuse-deterrent properties. And the Pediatric Advisory Committee will make recommendations regarding a framework for pediatric opioid labeling before any new labeling is approved. The FDA will consult an advisory committee on abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) opioids when they raise novel issues. Outcome: Review and advice from external experts with opportunity for public input before approval of any new opioid that does not have abuse-deterrent properties and expert advice on pediatric opioid labeling.
Develop warnings and safety information for immediate-release (IR) opioid labeling. The FDA is developing changes to IR opioid labeling, including additional warnings and safety information that incorporate elements similar to the extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioid analgesics labeling update that occurred in 2013. Outcome: Better information for doctors about the risks and how to prescribe safely.
Strengthen postmarket requirements. Because the evidence base to guide the use of opioid medications, particularly in the setting of long-term use, is substantially lacking, the FDA is strengthening the requirements for drug companies to generate postmarket data on the long-term impact of using ER/LA opioids. Outcome: Better evidence on the serious risks of misuse and abuse associated with long-term use of opioids, predictors of opioid addiction and other important issues.
Update Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program. ER/LA opioids are currently subject to a REMS program that requires sponsors to fund continuing medical education (CME) providers to offer, at low or no cost, CME courses on the appropriate use of these products. The FDA will update the REMS program requirements for opioids after considering advisory committee recommendations and review of existing requirements. Outcome: Increase the number of prescribers who receive training on pain management and safe prescribing of opioid drugs in order to decrease inappropriate opioid prescribing.
Expand access to abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) to discourage abuse. The pharmaceutical industry has shown significant interest in developing ADFs and the technology is progressing rapidly. ADFs hold promise as their abuse-deterrent qualities continue to improve and as they become more widely available. The FDA will issue draft guidance with its recommendations for the approval standards for generic abuse-deterrent formulations. Release of this guidance is a high priority, since the availability of less costly generic products should accelerate prescribers’ uptake of ADFs. Outcome: Spur innovation and generic ADF product development.
Support better treatment. The FDA is reviewing options, including over-the-counter availability, to make naloxone more accessible to treat opioid overdose, building on the agency’s recent approval of intranasal naloxone. The agency actively supports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for prescribing opioids for the treatment of pain and will facilitate the development of evidence and improved treatments. Outcome: Broader access to overdose treatment, safer prescribing and use of opioids, and ultimately, new classes of pain medicines without the same risks as opioids.
Reassess the risk-benefit approval framework for opioid use. The FDA will seek advice from the agency’s Science Board in March 2016 and is already engaging the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on how to take into account our evolving understanding of the risks of opioids, not only to the patient but also the risks of misuse by other persons who obtain them. These reports will be publicly available. Outcome: Formal incorporation of the broader public health impact of opioid abuse in approval decisions.
We won't know until we see the data. Pfizer has a 12% ratio for Naltrexone to Oxy and from what I've seen for ELI-200 is a 10% ratio.
Need to see the data...
Take a look at the following document from Pfizer and search for separation (page 22). The biggest issue yesterday was that someone could selectively extract Oxycodone with only minimal Naltrexone.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/AnestheticAndAnalgesicDrugProductsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM505128.pdf
Elite's separation data isn't publicly available.
KemPharma has a different mechanism of action. Their product is a pro-drug. The advisory committee clearly voted that they did not have an abuse deterrent formulation unlike yesterday's vote for Pfizer. It's clear that the panel likes agonist/antagonist formulations.
Lasers, I bought ELTP years ago and have just been sitting on it and focused on other investments. Do we have extraction data?
I joined the ADcom late today and didn't see the Pfizer data on extraction. Overall I believe that this was a positive vote in the end, but at the end of the day FDA does what they want and there is tremendous political pressure to approve abuse deterrent agents. I think that the chair summed it up nice at the end.
FDA does not have to follow the ADCom recommendations and they have gone against ADcom recommendations in the past. With so much political pressure to do something about Opiate abuse, I believe that the FDA will ultimately approve. You will always have no votes, but overall this is looking good and I think that ELTP will also do well.
About to vote now...
https://collaboration.fda.gov/aadpacdsarm0616/
New FDA draft guidelines outlining testing standards for abuse-deterrent opioids published Thursday. http://www.pressreader.com/usa/houston-chronicle/20160325/281745563515873/textview
As someone that has launched many drugs. 31% support of PCPs prior to launch is certainly positive!
Physicians call for novel abuse-deterrent opioid agonist/antagonist formulations in survey
Out of 214 physicians, 31% said opioid antagonists/agonists are the most needed formulation.
http://www.fiercedrugdelivery.com/story/physicians-call-novel-abuse-deterrent-opioid-agonistantagonist-formulations/2015-11-09?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal
Lasers, I received your message and unfortunately I'm not a member of ESMO so I don't have access to the poster. Hopefully, ONCS will share the full poster soon.
I spent a couple of days trying to figure out who was in the picture after the SAB and I finally figured it out. However, I was disappointed not to see Dr. Soldano Ferrone at the SAB. He was presenting at the meeting and perhaps he wasn't in the picture or I didn't recognize him. I thought for sure that we would see a picture of him.
The folks away from the table against the wall are a couple of the new lab folks (based on Linkedin pictures). The head of molecular discovery and Dr. Daud are at the table, but I haven't gone through everyone else.
ding, ding, ding.... we have a winner! So I guess Punit was just throwing the shareholders a bone with the recent PR, which is a good thing. I give him points for that!
If you think that sponsoring Ironman is that important go for it. I'm a scientist and this company needs to focus on two things. 1. science and 2. keeping the shareholders in the loop on the science so that they are engaged and investing. I would much rather spend my money on a couple more PRs and beef up the investor relations department.
One more thing... I'm surprised that no one picked this up yet, but I will give you a clue. Go back and look at the tweet from Punit about the SAB during the ISDV conference. Who do you see in the picture? Let's see who wins the prize.
Thank you Lasers....Very informative!
Think about this...
Why would a company like Oncosec, with no marketed products and no income other than shareholder money sponsor a local Ironman contestant? Do they need the advertisement? We need data and an effective PR team, not a guy on bicycle wearing an Oncosec shirt. I'm sure that we spent a couple of grand on the bike as well.
This is the sort of thing that worries me about our CEO.....
https://twitter.com/Oncosec/status/497447204903464960/photo/1
Sorry richme, I couldn't respond to your message since I have the free version of IHub. Ph.D. in Pharmacology is the answer
I'm new to ELTP and am still reading through the FDA regulatory guidelines for abuse deterrent opiods. However, based on my initial readings it doesn't appear that a large classic phase III trial is required. Once again, I'm new to this area. Most of my clinical development experience was in infectious disease and oncology. Take a look at the following site.
http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Regulatory-Safety/FDA-Shifts-Focus-to-Abuse-Deterrent-Generic-Opioid-Development
This is all my opinion and I will be contributing more to the board as I get up to speed.
You guys are great. Thanks for the tips. I've been stalking the board for a couple of weeks and pulled the trigger at $0.30 last week.
You got me there! Good point.
Thanks, I'm still doing my DD here and a phase 3 would not be required for these products. They just need to show bio-equivalence and proof that the tamper resistant process works.
Yes, this is certainly a key priority for FDA and that will help move things along.
I look forward to learning more about ELTP for the group. Please feel free to point me in the direction of key resources for DD.
Another option would be to do an Adaptive/seamless phase II/Phase III trial. This sort of trial is fairly new to pharma. The adaptive trial is faster and provides cost savings. Here's some bullet points from a slide deck that I used in the past.
Adaptive / Seamless phase II/Phase III trial
Primary objective - to combine “treatment selection” and
“confirmation” in one trial
– Enroll patients into the trial –
– During the trial, select the optimal dose (or population) based on interim data
– Based on surrogate marker, early read-out of endpoint, or
primary endpoint
– Enrollment continues only on the selected dose and the comparator arm
All data from chosen arm and comparator is used in final analysis, using novel statistical methods for combining evidence from
1st and 2nd stage to control false positive error rate and maintaining trial integrity
I'm still learning about ELTP and it's pipeline, but it definitely seems that cost savings is a priority here.
Pivotal phase2b studies are reserved for drugs that are intended to treat life-threatening or severely-debilitating illnesses as in oncology indications. I doubt that we will see one in pain management. They will have to go the classic route with a phase III
Lasers, good to see you on this board as well. I just took a position in ELTP last week and like the prospects...
For all of you guys comminicating with Punit and IR at ONCS. Please ask them why they haven't updated clinicaltrials.gov to reflect the expansion of the phase2A trail. It's my understanding that any updates to a trial have to be posted to clinicaltrials.gov in 30 days or face a fine. Have they started the expansion cohort? If they haven't I doubt that the phase 2b will be started this year. The information for the expansion cohort is critical for the optimal design of the phase 2b.
from the reporting requirements section of clinicaltrials.gov;
thanks, It's been hard to filter through all the noise lately... Lasers always posts the facts and I like that!
Stop the whining....
I've said it before and will say it again. The problem here is lack of experience from Punit down the rungs (except for Dr. Pierce). I'm hopeful that they truly do have some good hires coming up to be announced in September, but I haven't seen anything on the executive headhunter search lists. I'm not giving up on ONCS yet, but waiting for a clear path forward with experienced personnel.
For those of you whining about trading Jeff's discussion with Punit here's the number for Oncosec (855) 662-6732. It took me all of 2 minutes to find it.
Overall I do believe in the science of Oncosec, but be careful investing in science alone.... I've never seen a CEO of a company that tweets as much as Punit and has his own website (http://punitdhillon.com/). Call me old fashion....
In closing, here's an interesting Facebook post by the Head of Molecular Discovery at OncoSec on August 3rd.
You totally missed the point of my message....Please read again. My concern is not with IL-12 it's that the company may not be following up with the sites enough to keep the trials moving along. I've spent many years in industry doing just that. I've worked in clinical development for Merck, JNJ and Novartis and know from experience that you have to constantly follow-up with sites to keep things moving.
As you can tell from my posts, I do a lot of DD on companies and their staff. Take a look at the work experience for the Executive Director of Clinical Development -
I mentioned that "it looks like he is losing interest". My reasoning is that he doesn't include EP IL12 on slide 34 of the deck and take a look at the following site. http://www.merkelcell.org/news/
1/14 there is a picture of him holding a vial of the TLR-4 agonist and you have to scroll down to 1/12 to see a detailed description of EP IL-12.
For such a rare disease it's tough to be involved with what appears to be 3 separate projects (clinicaltrials.gov only lists two MCC trials, but this site list three separate agents). There just aren't enough patients.
The bottom line is that this Dr. Bhatia is an internationally recognized MCC expert and Oncosec needs to do their part to keep him engaged and enrolling patients.
The answer to your second question is yes, Toll like receptor agonist 4 agents do function as immunomodulators. They are among a newer class of agents