Thu, Oct 2, 2014, 1:29 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 8 hrs 1 mins

Recent

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

Trius Therapeutics, Inc. (TSRX) Message Board

posgost67 51 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 30, 2014 2:42 AM Member since: May 30, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • posgost67 posgost67 Jul 11, 2014 11:42 AM Flag

    Sorry, after per GC should be a period, not a colon. That may be a little confusing

  • posgost67 posgost67 Jul 11, 2014 11:41 AM Flag

    You are correct, in an ideal world 99% 99% would be amazing. But if the test results (remember GW Medical Technologies original data showed a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of a whopping 96% in a study of 72 patients- The long term results from these patients will also be presented in Copenhagen in the clinical abstract, per GC: Remember the sensitivity should go up with time as patients who originally did not meet diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's get older, and possibly progress to disease, while the specificity should stay the same, since once your diagnosed with Alzheimer's, you don't really lose that diagnosis, unless you watched the planet of the apes movie and James Franco gives you a retrovirus to cure Alzheimer's...).

    Now could this be the "new intellectual property" that AMBS recently acquired for the beefed up LymPro test:
    Type this into your favorite web browser:
    "Multivariate analysis of differential lymphocyte cell cycle activity in Alzheimer's disease."

    It is a paper by the original authors of the LymPro test published in 2012. Instead of just using CD69, It measured 12 cell surface molecules on lymphocytes. 7 of these markers were differentially regulated on lymphocytes of Alzheimer's disease. Using these markers, a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 92% was obtained in a total of 32 Alzheimer's patients compared to 56 controls (26 Parkinson's patients and 30 healthy age matched controls).
    the original results the scientists presented were 92 and 90% for their expanded study).

    Now: if BD was able to replicate these studies, with a sensitivity over 90% and a specificity greater than that, that would be the best news for AMBS.

    If the specificity is 96% like originally reported by GW, this will definitely be used by the big pharma for clinical trials, to be used as an exclusion criteria since if the test is negative, that will tell the company with 96% certainty that the patient does not have Alzheimer's disease.

    JMHO.

  • Reply to

    Becton Dickenson Being Presented in Copenhagen

    by riskreturn168 Jul 11, 2014 10:25 AM
    posgost67 posgost67 Jul 11, 2014 11:18 AM Flag

    This is why I said the analyticalperformance presentation is so much more important than the clinical performance presentation.

    Do we know when the analytical performance data will be presented at the conference?

    Thanks in advance

  • posgost67 posgost67 Jul 9, 2014 10:07 PM Flag

    Apparently Gerald agrees with me too in his blog that the analytical performance is more important than the clinical performance

  • posgost67 posgost67 Jul 8, 2014 4:22 AM Flag

    See bball's post below, and my post below it for the answer to your and eloinment's questions. Its all about who is performing the test. If AMBS is doing it, nobody believes it (See the price chart to the right showing 10 cents per share). If BD shows that AMBS is not full of horse manure, whoa nilly.

  • posgost67 posgost67 Jul 8, 2014 4:19 AM Flag

    Risk, this is your answer to your question above about how do I justify my price target for AMBS based on the specificity and sensitivity numbers being verified by an outside lab.
    This will become the gold standard test for Alzheimer's disease. A disease that right now has no gold standard test, because nobody can afford it. Remember the CPT code. That means insurances, medicare and medicaid can start paying for it.
    Early diagnosis for any neurologic disease is paramount for early treatment (except Huntington's and Lou Gehrig's/ALS).

  • posgost67 posgost67 Jul 7, 2014 11:55 PM Flag

    Sensitivity= actual positives out of all positives (actual positives + false positives). This is the ability of a test to pick up true positives, i.e. tell a patient he has the disease.
    Specificity=actual negatives out of all negatives (actual negatives + false negatives). This is the ability of a test to pick out true negatives, i.e. tell a patient he does not have the disease.

  • The clinical performance is AMBS's experience with the LymPro test. The analytic performance is BD's results with the tests, as BD was the outside lab paid to verify the results (prove another lab can get the same results as AMBS.)

    I think if BD gets above a 90% specificity and a 85-90% sensitivity, this will be 0.25- 0.30 after the conference.

  • Reply to

    Yesssssssss

    by porschetarga55 May 28, 2014 4:00 PM
    posgost67 posgost67 Jul 7, 2014 12:19 AM Flag

    I agree Risk. Praying never hurts. Its just not a very good investment strategy, compared to doing some DD.

  • Reply to

    Yesssssssss

    by porschetarga55 May 28, 2014 4:00 PM
    posgost67 posgost67 Jul 7, 2014 12:18 AM Flag

    Hope you had some BBQ and beer this weekend, I sure did. Don't frequent message boards very frequently. Send me an email if you have questions. My screenname here is a yahoo email account. I think D-day is coming soon for both INO and AMBS. Good luck. I'm comfortable in my positions for both.

  • Reply to

    Yesssssssss

    by porschetarga55 May 28, 2014 4:00 PM
    posgost67 posgost67 Jul 7, 2014 12:14 AM Flag

    Its really early. They need to pick an autoimmune disease. So that means: Alzheimer's, not a chance. EAE, model of multiple sclerosis that is induced by a vaccine (MOG peptide with complete freund's adjuvant), likely you can improve outcome there. Translating results from that model to MS have been difficult. Its not as bad as the NOD mouse model of diabetes (A good friend of mine is a prominent diabetes researcher, and he said if you stare at a NOD mouse funny for a long enough period of time, or if you spit on it, you can prevent diabetes in the mice), but its still pretty easy to prevent/reverse EAE in mice.

TSRX
13.630.00(0.00%)Sep 11 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.