Replies to post #178926 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[rosemountbomber]

Chas, I agree with you that they tilted the study in their favor by having V being taken incorrectly, and that can be easily seen when comparing the blood levels with the other studies such as Anchor, Marine, etc. Since they were simply studying blood levels, not blinding is not consequential and I grew up and studied science in Canada so not sure why you think trials in Canada indicates anything.

[rfj1862]

I just searched UpToDate for this recommendation you mention (I have a subscription), and as far as I can see there is no such thing there. Where did you hear this?

I searched for Vascepa and for Icosapent, and I do not see anything mentioning it in context of mineral oil. The only thing I could find was this:

"Another commercial preparation, Vascepa, is more than 95 percent icosapent ethyl, the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid [107]. In a small trial of patients with very high fasting triglyceride levels, icosapent-ethyl (4 g/day) reduced triglyceride levels by up to 45 percent but did not significantly affect LDL cholesterol levels [108]."

Also Kastelein is not listed as an author of any article.

Not saying it isn't there but if it is it is very difficult to find. But it is more likely some idiot on StockTwits is lying again, knowing that people without a subscription wouldn't be able to check (sigh)

I just noticed Dr. John Kastelein, who co-authored the NEJM editorial that included a mild mention of mineral oil, and who was quoted in the Forbes follow-up article as recommending Vascepa, and who co-authored the uptodate recommendation to not take V for now citing mineral oil, was named to MTNB's new scientific advisory board in December. He also led two trials that had LDL-C increases bigger than RI's.


MTNB has an unpublished scientific poster that compares plasma EPA levels for their drug MAT9001 against Vascepa. MAT9001 is a blend with EPA and DPA. Their tiny trial (about 40 subjects for a few weeks) several years ago showed much higher levels of plasma EPA compared to Vascepa. Several red flags, including they gave the entire dose in the morning after an extremely low-fat breakfast. V needs some fat for good absorption, and is labeled with food 2g every 12 hours. They suppressed V absorption by violating directions. BTW, their trial was unblinded, conducted in Canada, and the subjects resided in their facility throughout the trial. They reported Vascepa plasma EPA levels far below levels measured in large clinical trials (Anchor, Marine and RI).


Does anyone know what's up with the uptodate website re Vascepa?

[jessellivermore]

chas...

MAT9001...is such a pile of baloney that they will not even tell anyone what it actually is...Purer BS...

":>) JL