InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 252426
Next 10
Followers 122
Posts 8884
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/05/2004

Re: mcbio post# 166760

Friday, 09/20/2013 1:59:35 PM

Friday, September 20, 2013 1:59:35 PM

Post# of 252426
Different chemistry. This is why Prosensa could not give such a high dose like Sarepta could with the patients. Prosensa's drug is more toxic which is why you had so many children experience AE's, stop taking the drug and/or end up in the hospital. Notice no one from their bigger trial came out and pushed for the drug to be approved like they did for Eteplirsen. The results from eteplirsen have been great thus far with no AE's. At this point there is no drug out there to help these kids. The alternative is that they get worse and die. Why not approve and require SRPT to do a confirmatory trial? The FDA could take a lot of heat not approving eteplirsen, the kids get worse to the point where the drug no longer helps and then later finds out the drug did help. Not sure it's worth the risk. This is not a dug to treat acne or obesity.

"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia"

Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.