my pleasure; I only posted over there and at LPTN's board after I was sure that squalamine eye drops were working. Now I know how powerful the Dr. K news leak was, because I suspect that it just now came to the attention of wall street.
huh? Glaxo's drug did the same thing; it was absorbed into the anterior chamber which drains into the systemic circulation. This is the same situation that Kayla's drug is in. The eye drop is false advertising for what the route to the retina that the drug actually takes. Now given a potent enough tki such as Kayla's it is conceivable that a systemic concentration could be built up that would treat CNV, the same as oral pazopanib treated CNV. But no one will give cardiotoxic drugs indefinitely when they have squalamine eye drops.
All these drugs based on their BASIC CHEMICAL STRUCTURE are unable to cross through the sclera. And if they could take a scleral route, they WON'T STICK IN THE SCLERA. Squalamines sticks in the sclera because it is charged +2 and the endothelial cells, as do all cells, has a negative voltage
Anybody who is short Ohr is seriouisly mistaken and will lose their shirt.
Your not only stuck in the woods fazeely,, but lost as well
correction when I wrote
"One of the sthat will drive the use of the eye drop is not "the easiest to treat" patients ...."
should have been "One of the THINGS that will drive the use of the eye drop....
yes, some of the patients only needed the initial shot, about 4% I think. And there will be a significant fraction who only need 1 to 3 shots per year.
One of the sthat will drive the use of the eye drop is not "the easiest to treat" patients but it is the "hardest to treat" patients since eye docs realize the huge morbidity risk patients who need 7 or more injections every year are taking on
And of course even the patients who do well with only 1 to 3 shots per year are going to suffer from the recurrence of their lesions before they get treatment, since they are not being prophylactically treated with anything. Squalaine eye drops serve as a preventative therapy as well as an acute treatment indication. The risks of the patients having to notice a symptom of wet amd such as a blind spot AND THEN get treatment is eliminated if they are always taking the eye drops
It was impossible to get Lucentis to take a transcleral path and it also was absorbed into the anterior chamber; Avastin is larger and also will not take a transcleral route. The purpose of the 'nanoparticles' is to keep a large amount of Avastin right on the corneal mucous layer so it has time to diffuse across and interior the anterior camber; this is good for iris neovascularizations but Avastin or Lucentis, or Eylea all are going to be absorbed systemically at that point and only then recirculate back to the retina.
Of course the amount of Avastin coming from the systemic circulation needed in order to correct CNV would be the same order of magnitude as the amount used to treat cancer and thus presents impossibly risky side effects for the patients.
Right now, institutional accumulation is occurring; that means that when the announcement of successful interim phase 2 is made, buying will be immediate and intense which may lift the shares to a valuation of $200
I meant that after getting the results no later than April 8, Ohr will take a week or so to analyze it and then make an announcement that will shake REGN to it's core..
No manipulation is going to work at this point. The company should have the results in 4 weeks a week spent analyzing it, there will be an announcement. We're on our way to $100
rxonman has done the most work in that area. My ballpark figure is about 5K per year
Avastin is absorbed in the anterior chamber and then enters the systemic circulation; onty then can it recirculate back to the retina. Here is a blurb from the news release; note the words "rats and rabbits". This is the same problem I pointed that occurred with Glaxo's eye drop. It will not work with humans because of the size; the rats and rabbits are getting a systemic dose of Avastin as can be found from serum samples.
There is no way to avoid systemic absorption of Avastin once it gets into the anterious chamber; it will principally be absorbed systemically at that point and very little if any will take a route to the vitreous chamber
. "..in their study, the team showed how they could get nanoparticles loaded with Avastin to deliver significant concentrations to the back of the eyes of RATS AND RABBITS".
The study shows that Avastin can be transported across the cells of the cornea into the back of the eye, where it stops blood vessels from leaking and forming new blood vessels, the basis for wet AMD.
In theory, say the researchers, you could adapt the technology for use with other drugs like Lucentis, commonly used in the UK to treat AMD. Lucentis is a smaller molecule than Avastin.
UCL's technology transfer company, UCL Business, has patented the eye drop technique. The team is now looking for commercial partners to speed up the way ahead."
Even if it's 2, that's more than a 50% reduction in injections and would make Ohr still worth 5 to10 billion dollars. And all they have to do to get it down to 1 injection is to increase that is to dose the drops 3 or 4 x per day, and then the company would be worth over 10 billion.
Come to think of it, your right about this being somewhat pointless. Any substantial reduction at the current dosing implies greater reduction at higher dosing which is easily feasible. So even if Ohr did announce only a reduction to 2 injections, that would not take away from the goal of eventually reducing injections by 90% by increasing the dose or frequency.
Interesting dubl2dz; the article is hidden behind a pay wall but I found a similar article discussing the treatment of port wine stain with the antiangiogenic "rapamycin":
"Long-term blood vessel removal with combined laser and topical rapamycin antiangiogenic therapy: Implications for effective port wine stain treatment
Complete blanching of port wine stain (PWS) birthmarks after laser therapy is rarely achieved for most patients. We postulate that the low therapeutic efficacy or treatment failure is caused by regeneration and revascularization of photocoagulated blood vessels due to angiogenesis associated with the skin's normal wound healing response. Rapamycin (RPM), an antiangiogenic agent, has been demonstrated to inhibit growth of pathological blood vessels. Our objectives were to (1) investigate whether topical RPM can inhibit reperfusion of photocoagulated blood vessels in an animal model and (2) determine the effective RPM concentration required to achieve this objective.
In the laser-only group, 23 out of 24 photocoagulated blood vessels reperfused within 5–14 days. In the combined treatment group with different RPM formulae and concentrations, the overall reperfusion rate of 36% was much lower as compared to the laser-only group. We also found that the reperfusion rate was not linearly proportional to the RPM concentration."
Others area of use for squalamine as an antiviral as discussed in Dr. Zasloff's 2010 paper, "Squalamine as a broad-spectrum systemic antiviral agent with therapeutic potential"
Then there are the numerous oncology applications.
Trodsuquemine has ubiquitous uses as well as an antibacterial as well as in diabetes, obesity fatty liver,..etc.
But right now, Ohr has to laser like focus on getting the drops approved for wet amd
My purpose in doing this pole is somewhat scientific; I just browsed through the Makiel infamous book "A Random Walk Down Wall Street".
Are we underestimating, overestimating, or getting close to the answer and if so, how has that affected the current price, if at all.
For instance, suppose the poll shows that most think the number of injections in the squalamine group will be 1 over 9 months, implying squalamine will become a blockbuster, but the share price lingers under $20 before the results are released.
Or the opposite, say if poll says the number of injections is 3 to 3.5 injections but the share price zooms up to $200 before the results are released
Then comparing the outcome of this survey to the price and interim phase 2 data once it is released.
Assume the average number of injections in the placebo group is around 4.5
Let's take a pole. Not counting the first mandatory injection, what do you think the average number of injections in the squalamine eye drop group will be?
I'm guessing the average number of injections will be 0.8