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

Amarin Corporation plc Message Board

marsala1234 47 posts  |  Last Activity: Oct 2, 2015 6:06 PM Member since: Jan 31, 2003
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    has anyone seen this pubmed publication?

    by seekingnfo1 Oct 2, 2015 1:47 PM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 Oct 2, 2015 6:06 PM Flag

    Yes the study was WITH a bowel prep so it is needed to screen. Big disincentive. Also these patients were symptomatic and high risk, they excluded all IBD patients because it didn't work and 25% of patients had adenomas or cancer. This has very little to do with screening an average risk, asymptomatic population without a colon prep. Not a competitor to CG anytime in the near future.

  • Reply to


    by marsala1234 Aug 10, 2015 11:26 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 Aug 10, 2015 11:34 AM Flag

    Correct - it appears they just left it as it was from the prior review

  • marsala1234 by marsala1234 Aug 10, 2015 11:26 AM Flag

    Aetna updated their CRC screening guidelines 8/7/15 and unfortunately continued to state CG is experimental. Looks like they won't budge until they are forced by the USPSTF. Next update listed in 6/16. Market doesn't seem to mind.

  • marsala1234 by marsala1234 Jul 22, 2015 11:24 PM Flag

    I was just surfing the web at a non medical site and 2 Cologuard ads pop up that are directed to physicians only. Medical lingo and how to sign up. I guess it might not be tough to connect internet dots but I was pretty surprised they knew the ad would be seen by a Dr. I've never seen that before for any other medical device or drug. Cool !

  • Reply to

    Great Q2, Boring Conference Call

    by senior6analyst Jul 20, 2015 10:35 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 Jul 20, 2015 11:47 AM Flag

    You are right Oldguy - the EXAS story isn't complicated. Patients and docs love the test. The main issue now is commercial coverage and the fact that insurers don't get Quality Measure credit for using CG (per NCQA/HEDIS) and are not required to cover CG. Once USPSTF is A or B, both issues will be resolved. Stock will soar or get crushed with that decision. I think chances of A or B are 90% so I'm in.

  • Reply to

    I took the test

    by nickcainski Jun 24, 2015 8:32 PM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 Jun 24, 2015 9:10 PM Flag

    What incentive? How about good patient care? It's illegal to get kickbacks for ordering tests. Don't have a very high opinions of Drs., do you? :)

  • marsala1234 marsala1234 Jun 17, 2015 4:39 PM Flag

    less than 50 years old and the performance of CG. I'm sure someone is looking into it.

  • New study-Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12(5)
    ABSTRACT: Screening of first-degree relatives of CRC patients is recommended to begin at age 40 or 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest relative diagnosed with CRC. CRC incidence has increased recently among younger Americans while it has declined among older Americans. The objective of this study was to determine whether first-degree relatives of CRC patients are being screened according to recommended guidelines.
    CONCLUSIONS: Despite a 5-fold increase in colonoscopy screening rates since 2005, rates among first-degree relatives younger than the conventional screening age have lagged. Screening promotion targeted to this group may halt the recent rising trend of CRC among younger Americans.

    Hmmm - 40 yr olds don't want a colonoscopy. Wonder if there is an alternative? :) Would be nice to see data of archived stool specimens on those

  • Reply to

    Today COULD end up being a very interesting day

    by trader_am Jun 11, 2015 10:22 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 Jun 11, 2015 5:59 PM Flag

    Good Aetna find Trader. Interesting that in their policy they approve screening African Americans at age 45 as medically necessary which is NOT a USPSTF recommendation so they obviously are not using USPSTF as there sole source of truth. Makes you wonder if they approve CG will they approve it for AA's at age 45 even though that would be off label?

  • Reply to

    five to six years to get blood test approved

    by lowtech1988 Jun 11, 2015 10:09 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 Jun 11, 2015 1:11 PM Flag

    Jim - it's not the cost of imaging that's the problem it's the lack of specificity. Only 4 out of a hundred suspected lesions turn out to be lung cancer and alot of follow up testing is needed to prove that (besides the radiation exposure to #$%$ on these lesions)

  • Reply to

    Better but still a ways to go

    by ranjovance May 19, 2015 6:27 PM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 May 20, 2015 9:24 AM Flag

    No doctors would not be successfully sued using CG - an FDA, CMS, American Cancer Society, American College of Gastroenterology approved test. Of course any discussion should include informed consent with the other options that are available. Without any other discussion the patient doesn't have informed consent.

  • Reply to

    Digestive Disease Week favorable reaction?

    by trg_1234 May 19, 2015 10:08 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 May 19, 2015 1:38 PM Flag

    After looking over the abstracts, there is some interesting and encouraging stuff but nothing earth shattering or imminent in terms of revenue or medical breakthroughs. I'm thinking this 10% move is due to something else - but not smart enough to know what.

  • Reply to

    Digestive Disease Week favorable reaction?

    by trg_1234 May 19, 2015 10:08 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 May 19, 2015 1:16 PM Flag

    Here's the SDNA FIT abstract
    Prevalence of DNA Biomarkers in Fecal Immunochemical Test Positive and
    Negative Colorectal Cancers
    Theodore R. Levin, Chyke A. Doubeni, Christopher D. Jensen, Wei K. Zhao, Alexis
    Zebrowski, Rebecca Oldham-Haltom, William R. Taylor, David A. Ahlquist, Hatim T.
    Allawi, Graham P. Lidgard, Douglas A. Corley, Barry M. Berger
    BACKGROUND: While fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening identifies the majority
    of patients with asymptomatic colorectal cancer (CRC), the addition of stool DNA biomarkers
    to FIT has been shown to significantly improve detection. We sought to determine if
    DNA biomarkers in CRC tumor tissue differ between FIT-positive and FIT-negative CRCs.
    DNA biomarkers were present in the majority of CRCs, regardless of FIT-positive status.
    These findings, if confirmed in stool testing, suggest that CRC screening with novel DNA
    biomarkers in combination with fecal hemoglobin may further improve colorectal neoplasia
    detection, although the impact on the false positive rate also needs to be evaluated.

  • Reply to

    Digestive Disease Week favorable reaction?

    by trg_1234 May 19, 2015 10:08 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 May 19, 2015 1:09 PM Flag

    identified markers detect EAC and ESCC with comparably high sensitivity, while others
    accurately distinguish these subtypes. Given their high discrimination and ease of assay,
    such markers merit further exploration for clinical application. .
    Most Discriminate Markers on MSP Validation in Independent Tissues

  • Reply to

    Digestive Disease Week favorable reaction?

    by trg_1234 May 19, 2015 10:08 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 May 19, 2015 1:07 PM Flag

    Ssteph -it's long so I'll parts of the abstract:
    Novel Epigenetic Markers for Detection of Esophageal Cancer: Selection by
    Whole Methylome Sequencing and Tissue Validation
    William R. Taylor, John B. Kisiel, Tracy C. Yab, Xiaoming Cao, Patrick Foote, Douglas W.
    Mahoney, Navtej Buttar, Thomas C. Smyrk, David A. Ahlquist
    Background: DNA methylation studies in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and squamous
    cell carcinoma (ESCC) have primarily focused on known tumor suppressor genes. Such
    efforts have yielded important mechanistic insights, but have provided few clinically useful
    markers. Massively parallel sequencing technology applied across the methylome affords an
    unbiased and comprehensive approach to the identification of discriminant markers for
    potential application in cancer screening and diagnosis. Aims: 1) Conduct methylome-wide
    discovery to identify EAC and ESCC-specific DNA methylation. 2) Select and validate top
    candidate markers suitable for downstream clinical application.
    Results: We identified 94 EAC
    and 88 ESCC DMRs from over 25 million sequencing reads; 85% had cancer related
    ontologies. From these, the top 68 (34 for each subset) were selected for MSP assay and
    technical validation. After re-testing, 80% of the candidate markers matched or exceeded
    their respective sequencing metrics. Several markers achieved almost perfect discrimination
    for EAC. The most discriminant 18 markers were taken to biological validation; 12 achieved
    superior AUC, fold change, and control group methylation (Table). Six markers demonstrated
    high methylation in both tumor types; the other 6 appeared to target EAC preferentially
    over ESCC. One marker in particular, FGF14, highly discriminated EAC from ESCC (Figure)
    with an AUC of 0.87. Conclusion: Unbiased methylome-wide sequencing, with appropriate
    filtering, yields outstanding candidate markers for detection of esophageal cancer. (next

  • Reply to

    Digestive Disease Week favorable reaction?

    by trg_1234 May 19, 2015 10:08 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 May 19, 2015 11:39 AM Flag

    ssteph - which abstract are you particularly interested in - I' may be able to get it.

  • Reply to

    DDW 2015 Poster Schedule

    by sstephanc May 15, 2015 5:57 PM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 May 18, 2015 12:36 PM Flag

    Anyway to get access to the content of these DDW posters?

  • Reply to

    Volume has dried up already!

    by huggmee2005 May 15, 2015 11:44 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 May 15, 2015 12:37 PM Flag

    FYI -Just read transcript - only 2 other EV 71 competitors

  • Reply to

    Volume has dried up already!

    by huggmee2005 May 15, 2015 11:44 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 May 15, 2015 12:13 PM Flag

    Agree I'm surprised it's held up so well. After reading the report last night I was expecting a 10%+ drop. Although I think it may drift lower in coming weeks with the normal SVA news vacuum.
    The one worthwhile question on the CC was on EV71 and competitors. I believe they said 4 total vaccine makers, one of whom got their inspection notification 2 months prior to SVA but no knowledge of others getting the notification. (I'll have to read the transcript)

  • Reply to

    Great news

    by belegger22 May 14, 2015 6:40 AM
    marsala1234 marsala1234 May 14, 2015 9:45 AM Flag

    Yeah it's slow, but that's the time table they stated in the last CC so it's old news.

2.06+0.08(+4.04%)Oct 2 4:00 PMEDT