Replies to post #88812 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[bidmark]

Do you spend this much time arguing with Investor Relations or do they have you on ignore?

[Whalatane]

PY about your comment

". And I think all of the fish consumption in the R-IT study will confound whatever effect there may be from high dose EPA supp on top of it. "

Everyone in R-IT did not become Japanese ( where high fish diet is the norm ).
Most in R-IT will be from heavy red meat eating countries ...especially Eastern Europe ...and switching to a diet including Salmon 3 times a week maybe harder then you think .

Of the 4 friends /associates I tried to enroll in R-IT ...all with previous MI's ...only one completely changed his diet from the US norm to Mediterrenean style.
I know , I know ...small study of 4 ..:-) ...just don't assume that every CAD patient does what their Cardiologist tells them to do .

Kiwi

[jessellivermore]

Yawn...

Quote: "I'm going to go off on a tangent for a second about DHA, shown to lower blood pressure and heart rate,"

So you are...Are you aware that Lovaza's label includes the risk of Atrial Fibrillation...If your blood pressure is up, take an anti-hypertensive. Also EPA affords protection against ventricular arrhythmia.

Your AAR argument is hot air...If AAR were taken seriously there would be no one on statins. Take a look at JUPITER for god's sake.

Trigs are about 2% of the V story at present...No knowledgeable person thinks trigs are the issue..(but you do).

EPA is a molecule that interacts in several key systems which are found in every cell of the body..It's effects are dose dependent and it is a competitive inhibitor of AA..(I know you don't understand this). Your notions on fish oil and fish oil absorption have no basis in reality. You just do not know the facts.

Meta analysis papers are garbage...Just selective literature searches to find articles which support some lazy professors point of view..Fish oil meta analysis are the very worst because...Well what the hell are you talking about when you say "fish oil"...

Next time do some research....

":>) JL

[Whalatane]

PY Lovaza PDF

As per JL's comments
----------------------------
"5.3 Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation (AF) or Flutter
In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 663 subjects with symptomatic paroxysmal AF (n =
542) or persistent AF (n = 121), recurrent AF or flutter was observed in subjects randomized to
LOVAZA who received 8 grams per day for 7 days and 4 grams per day thereafter for 23 weeks
at a higher rate relative to placebo. Subjects in this trial had median baseline triglycerides of 127
mg per dL, had no substantial structural heart disease, were taking no anti-arrhythmic therapy
(rate control permitted), and were in normal sinus rhythm at baseline.

At 24 weeks, in the paroxysmal AF stratum, there were 129 (47%) first recurrent symptomatic
AF or flutter events on placebo and 141 (53%) on LOVAZA [primary endpoint, HR 1.19; 95%
CI: 0.93, 1.35]. In the persistent AF stratum, there were 19 (35%) events on placebo and 34
(52%) events on LOVAZA [HR 1.63; 95% CI: 0.91, 2.18]. For both strata combined, the HR
was 1.25; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.40.
Although the clinical significance of these results is uncertain,
there is a possible association between LOVAZA and more frequent recurrences of symptomatic
atrial fibrillation or flutter in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation, particularly
within the first 2 to 3 months of initiating therapy. ( my emphasis )

LOVAZA is not indicated for the treatment of AF or flutter.

-----------------------
Kiwi
PS A Fib is a big issue . Have several friends with A Fib

[HDGabor]

P-

Lovaza > Vascepa imo for the above, and other, reasons. That's why it remains tier 1 on all plans. Including the largest plan in the country. While that same plan has Vas as tier 3.

First of all: I stand corrected since isn't living in the US ... but OMG
- show me any plan that keep Lovaza as Tier 1 (I guess it wasn't Tier 1 ever)
- if you mean generic Lovaza (as I think ...)
a.) I am sure it isn't Tier 1 in all plan
b.) you have to know that generic and brand products tiered differently. If the brand is still exist - meanwhile generic is available - the generic has a better tier than brand.

despite a legal disclaimer saying they cannot be held to everything written in it (obviously)

Why is it obvious?

FDA has openly stated ARR and RRR must be presented together on labeling.

Please cite. It was a recommendation (by the authors and not by the FDA) and wasn't a must. Furthermore you forget to cite any publication with ARR only (without RRR), meanwhile RRR (without ARR) are exist ...

When management says they "estimate" the mean TG will be "above 200," but not "above 220," or "250," etc., I assume they mean pretty close to 200. That means many patients must have enrolled with TG counts from 150 - 199. And then they also say just one other risk factor is needed. That can be elevated LDL-C. This is me just quoting them.

No surprise ... You see something and failed to check ... Furthermore I provided the exact details with exact references
a.) TG - read the AdCom slides, the Co stated de facto the TG levels for the first 6,075 patients (inc. breakdown of the app. 5,000-6,075) and it was 220.
b.) LDL-C inclusion criteria: 40-100 ... it isn't listed among risk factors

Nothing is "perfectly." My point is they are all advised

Please check study location and try to think out of the bubble ...

Interesting they say "similar." Relative to dose, perhaps.

You forget the previous sentence ... "a comparison of EPA blood levels in relevant trials suggest that 4 g doses of EPA provide similar EPA blood levels in the Western population studied when compared to the post-1.8g EPA-dose Japanese population studied in JELIS."

over 60% of the baseline levels of the JELIS study.

Previously you said: the same ...

If you compare JELIS with MARINE baseline (which may be closer to R-IT baseline)

What? IS MARINE closer to R-IT than ANCHOR? Are you serious?

I said it wasn't sponsored by AMRN, according to AMRN. I also believe that.

What is about chemtrail? .... UMIN000002815

Best,
G

ps.: I will explain / detail later (tom.) the 75% approach

[rdhitchcock]

Hypertension research journal on EPA vs DHA....

http://www.nature.com/hr/journal/v39/n4/abs/hr2015143a.html

Which has the stronger impact on coronary artery disease, eicosapentaenoic acid or docosahexaenoic acid?

It has been suggested that n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), protect against cardiovascular diseases, and EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) and DHA/AA ratios in serum are potential risk markers for coronary artery disease (CAD). The purpose of this study was to clarify the clinical significance of the difference in the EPA/AA ratio and the DHA/AA ratio in patients with CAD. In 369 patients with confirmed or suspected CAD who underwent diagnostic coronary angiography, we measured serum levels of EPA, DHA and AA and calculated the EPA/AA and DHA/AA ratios. The EPA/AA ratio was significantly lower in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) than in patients with chronic CAD or chest pain syndrome (0.27±0.19 vs. 0.44±0.20, respectively; P<0.01), whereas the DHA/AA ratio was similar in the two groups (0.78±0.27 vs. 0.79±0.37). Multiple logistic regression analyses using various biomarkers related to coronary risk discriminated ACS from other disease entities and demonstrated that the EPA/AA ratio (odds ratio: 0.0012, 95% confidence interval: 0.00–0.16, P<0.01) but not the DHA/AA ratio (odds ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.98–1.12) was a significant independent predictive factor. Our findings suggest that the EPA/AA ratio might be more closely associated with the pathophysiology of CAD, especially with that of ACS, than the DHA/AA ratio. Our findings suggest that interventions with EPA agents or supplemental EPA intake, compared with DHA agents or supplemental DHA, may confer greater benefit for plaque stabilization to prevent the onset of ACS in patients with CAD.