Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) Message Board

left2rightdoor 122 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 27, 2015 6:21 PM Member since: Jul 16, 2012
  • Someone is posting falsehood that no Eteplirsen treatment in Europe. the exon 53 skip is ongoing in Europe.
    posting materially false information knowingly creates legal liability

    4053-101: PHASE I/II STUDY

    Official Title: A 2-Part, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Titration, Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics Study (Part 1) Followed by an Open-Label Efficacy and Safety Evaluation (Part 2) of SRP-4053 in Patients With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Amenable to Exon 53 Skipping

    Purpose: This is a first-in-human, multiple-dose 2-part study to assess the safety, tolerability, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of SRP-4053 in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) patients with deletions amenable to exon 53 skipping.

    Enrollment Status: This study is recruiting participants at clinical sites in Europe.

    More information: www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02310906

  • Reply to

    Comparing NDA's

    by speedbll Jun 26, 2015 1:26 PM
    left2rightdoor left2rightdoor Jun 26, 2015 2:33 PM Flag

    That's what caused FDA skepticism, delayed DMD drugs for 2-3 years. Only now if FDA internal opinion recovering to believe in dystrophin. Time for a make-up call on Eteplirsen by the umpires who blew the first 5 innings. Has already started with rolling NDA, may accelerate in next month.

  • So someone is still interested in this clinical trial as of April 21, 2015. Maybe a surprise airburst one of these days.

  • left2rightdoor by left2rightdoor Jun 22, 2015 11:39 PM Flag

    Genocea 52% red in viral shedding. vical 19%
    Genocea 48% reduction in genital lesions. vical 51%
    Not clear why lesion reduction comparable or better, shedding less.
    worth looking at some more data.

  • left2rightdoor left2rightdoor Jun 22, 2015 9:39 PM Flag

    The PTC/BMRN had a table by an academic, not a rep of either co, showing how many exons were in clinical trials, Sarepta had 7, 2 more than anybody else. Sarepta, as Ed Kaye said at PPMD Connect Conference, is committed to getting therapy to as many treatable DMD boys as it can. SEVEN exons is more important than a lot of handwaving about 6MWT

  • because the regulatory path is too long. Go get em Ed.
    PPMO versaility and specificity (Limited off target effects !!!!!!)
    Using patient reported outcome measures
    Regulatory approval pathways Accelerated Approval and Fast Track

  • left2rightdoor by left2rightdoor Jun 19, 2015 2:17 PM Flag

    If it worked for 12 patients, and it is shown safe for additional 20-30 patients, and. clear evidence shows that a drug produces a biochemical response that mitigates the serious disease then the benefit risk balance is positive.

  • left2rightdoor left2rightdoor Jun 19, 2015 12:58 PM Flag

    don't know about herpes but vaccine space and specif DNA vaccine technology and adjuvants seems interesting in view of ACIP discussing H5n1 vaccine next week, widspread avian flu decimating poultry industry in US, and potential for new reassorts given large number of carriers/wild birds/pigs/turkeys etc/

  • Ed Kaye starts w/Sarepta at 2:40, then PTC, Biomarin

  • left2rightdoor left2rightdoor Jun 17, 2015 9:30 AM Flag

    Extends cash runway Last presentation Jun said $111 cash, expenses 65-80/yr, funds to mid 2016. Upfront $33 covers them to end 2016, NDA for HAE. Stockpile would be on top of that. BCX 4430, new targets BCXxxxx coming.

  • Reply to

    PPMD conference this week

    by simp08801 Jun 15, 2015 8:08 AM
    left2rightdoor left2rightdoor Jun 15, 2015 11:38 AM Flag

    National End Duchenne Rally on Capitol Hill Steps, followed by meetings with legislators. 9-12:30 June 19
    see PPMD Connect Conf Agenda

  • Reply to

    PPMD conference this week

    by simp08801 Jun 15, 2015 8:08 AM
    left2rightdoor left2rightdoor Jun 15, 2015 11:12 AM Flag

    Interesting session could. be FDA Farkas on Jun 19 1:45 - can't say much specific but reemphasize FDA commitment to getting therapies to DMD community as soon as reasonably likely to show benefit , this after DMD demonstration on capitol steps in morning

  • left2rightdoor left2rightdoor Jun 14, 2015 12:48 AM Flag

    See PPMD's comments about Biomarin getting rolling NDA filed on April 27
    Suggests drug approval by 1Q 2016. A credible pathway, although always uncertain, is -mid year NDA complete, 3Q Advisory Committee, FDA approval within 6 months after AdComm.

    ParentProjectMD's insight:
    The Duchenne community should celebrate. Today, Biomarin submitted the rolling NDA on drisapersen. This means we now have a second NDA submitted for Duchenne. Santhera is likely to follow soon. By first quarter 2016, we may see 3 approved drugs with more to follow. This is exactly what we have been working for, hoping for.

  • Reflects Sarepta's Oct 6, 2014 comment on PPMD draft that Safety should be a specific consideration,
    This is because Sarepta knows, as shown in their Credit Suisse presentation, that because of the specific charge neutral design of Eteplirsen, it is less likely to have off target effects. The FDA issued change to the PPMD draft guidance puts safety as the 4th general consideration, reduces the discussion of how many ways DMD can be variable and dystrophin measurement needs to be improved, and discusses how accelerated approval may be facilitated.

  • Reply to

    Key FDA Guidance points and comments

    by left2rightdoor Jun 9, 2015 9:58 AM
    left2rightdoor left2rightdoor Jun 9, 2015 1:23 PM Flag

    Some odd bits in this guidance - safety is important, balance of totality of evidence between modest effects and substantial risks can be swayed by patient reported outcomes (PROs)

    FDA considers the totality of the available evidence when conducting a benefit-risk assessment.
    For example, if the effect size on a sensitive measure of muscle function is modest for a drug
    with substantial risks, evidence of the clinical impact of the effect provided by PROs is likely to
    be an important basis of benefit-risk assessments (Will drug developers be lining up patients to testify?)

    and then..

    but renal impairment issues can be deferred until after approval if molecular biochemistry suggests lack of impacts, (are they finally recognizing that Eteplirsen has FEWER OFFTARGET IMPACTS)

  • left2rightdoor by left2rightdoor Jun 9, 2015 9:58 AM Flag

    FDA has long stressed, however , it is appropriate to exercise flexibility in applying the statutory standards for drugs for serious diseases with important unmet needs
    -FDA generally will consider the serious and life threatening nature of DMD when. determining the minimum number of patients exposures needed (GOOD)
    -Drugs shown to provide an important benefit may need less safety data to provide assurance that risks are commensurate with benefits (GOOD)
    -Safety data for a reasonable number of patients exposed to drug for at least one year generally is appropriate to support approval of drugs intended for chronic use in treating DMD (The clock is running now)

  • Reply to

    Etep needs all Three

    by pearsby09 Jun 8, 2015 12:20 PM
    left2rightdoor left2rightdoor Jun 8, 2015 3:10 PM Flag

    FDA had doubts about Sarepta's dystrophin production BECAUSE Prosensa had bad data showing large increases in dystrophin which, under further scrutiny, did not stand up. There were no good baseline data, and the methodology and results were suspect. This poisoned the well for the whole dystrophin-production-skipping therapy for a couple of years, until the Mothers and others said, wait a minute, its working for our kids, why can't more have eteplirsen. Now, with better understanding of the measurement protocols, and acceptance of the efficacy of increasing dystrophin as moderating full DMD toward Beckers, the FDA is striving, correctly, to catch up and speed a treatment for the unmet medical need of DMD. Mendell, Wilton, Muntoni are all on the side of eteplirsen and dystrophin.

  • FDA is evaluating a first-of-a-kind, first-in-class medical product for human use.
    FDA is evaluating a first-in-class antimicrobial for use in food-producing animals.
    FDA is evaluating a medical product for a significant new indication.
    FDA is evaluating a novel product or use of new technology.
    FDA is evaluating a medical product that involves a significant diagnostic,
    therapeutic, or preventative advance.
    FDA’s assessment of the risk/benefit ratio of a product or class of products is
    likely to be controversial or it appears that the risks and benefits are of similar
    magnitude, especially where the products may have a narrow therapeutic effect.
    FDA has significant safety concerns about a class of products. This scenario includes such concerns in pre- or post-market situations (e.g., significant safety concerns relating to the pre-market re
    view of a medical product regulated by FDA, or significant safety concerns relating to the post-market review of such a medical product, including significant concern
    FDA has significant questions or concerns about a study, including a clinical trial......
    FDA personnel have a significant difference of opinion on a complex matter
    FDA is seeking outside expertise on scientific techniques or research
    ....

    From Draft Guidance for the Public and FDA Staff on Convening Advisory Committee Meetings, August 2008

  • left2rightdoor by left2rightdoor Jun 5, 2015 6:29 PM Flag

    Policy
    A. Considering when to Convene a Meeting
    In most instances, FDA has discretion to consid
    er whether to refer a matter to an advisory
    committee for consideration.
    1. Factors:
    In those instances in which FDA is not legally compelled to refer a matter to an advisory
    committee, it may nevertheless choose to do so voluntarily. When considering whether
    to convene such a meeting, FDA should consider the following three factors:
    (a)Is the matter at issue of such significant public interest that
    it would be highly beneficial to obtain the advice of an advisory committee as part of the
    agency’s regulatory decision-making process?
    (b)Is the matter at issue so controversial that it would be highly beneficial to
    obtain the advice of an advi sory committee as part of the agency’s regulatory
    decision-making process?
    (c)Is there a special type of expertise that an advisory committee could provide
    that is needed for the agency to fully consider a matter?

  • Reply to

    dystrophin rescores and new safety data

    by immediatereliefxxx Jun 3, 2015 7:08 AM
    left2rightdoor left2rightdoor Jun 3, 2015 10:21 AM Flag

    Its on the site for comments on gov regulations dot gov in the docket for fda dystrophin workshop,.

YHOO
38.61-0.77(-1.96%)Jul 6 4:00 PMEDT