You really have no idea what you're talking about. Interim data is ONLY available to an independent data safety monitoring board. Not to the company or researchers. Anything to the contrary would void the study for FDA consideration.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Let's take a look at what the 2 presentations will actually be.
A1775 - ORBIT-3 and ORBIT-4: Design of a Phase 3 Program to Investigate Safety and Efficacy of Pulmaquin® in Non-Cystic Fibrosis Bronchiectasis (NCFBE) Patients Chronically Colonized with Pseudomonas Aeruginosa (PA) by A. E. O'Donnell, D. Serisier, A. Wanner, J. Froehlich, P. Bruinenberg and I. Gonda
A3734 - Liposome-Ciprofloxacin Inhibits Mycobacterium avium subs hominissuis (MAH) Microaggregate Formation in a Dose and Time Dependent Manner, by L. E. Bermudez, J. Blanchard, L. Babrak, and I. Gonda
First one is a talk about the design of the P3 studies. No data.
Second one is data from a study at Oregon State in mice:
Scientists from the Oregon State University, Corvallis (OSU) and Aradigm Corporation (Nasdaq: ARDM) (the “Company”) demonstrated that Aradigm’s investigational drugs Lipoquin and Pulmaquin significantly reduced the growth of the pulmonary non-tuberculous mycobacteria infection (PNTM) after 3 weeks of once daily respiratory tract dosing in mice. The number of colony forming units of Mycobacterium Avium Subsp Hominissuis was reduced by 79% and 77% by Lipoquin and Pulmaquin, respectively (p
You really are the idiot if you think data from a double-blind P3 trial can be used in a presentation before it is unblinded. Any data leakage would void the entire effort.
...or even for a P3 study conducted at a single site?? Sorry, but it just doesn't work that fast. No emotion involved at all.
So in your 43 years experience how often have you seen data compiled and unblinded within days of study completion, for a P3 trial conducted in many countries around the globe? I'll be happy to discuss but you are putting ridiculous statements out there.
And I am tired of correcting your factual misstatements. We will not see top line data in September. The last patient will finish treatment in September. Top line data will be December at the earliest.
$23 million. Net proceeds after fees: $20.7 million. Putting $2.07 million into escrow to fund the first 2 interest payments. So they're left with $18.6 million, or about 6 months of cash from this deal. They still don't have enough cash to get to FDA approval.
The science does look good. It's still a gamble though. Biotech is littered with P3 failures after promising P2 results. That's why you should never put all your eggs in one basket, or you should at least hedge with some puts to avoid being wiped out.
That said I do like their chances and will buy back in at the right time. I sold around $7 about a year ago and am in no hurry. I'm not impressed with management and their ability to execute (it took for-freaking-ever to enroll the studies) or to manage their scarce funds.
I never said I'd buy into the offering/secondary. I'm waiting for the inevitable fallout afterwards.
As for this particular deal there's too many unanswered questions. Someone us positioned to pick up a big chunk of the company and will collect 9% while they're waiting. Seems like a steep tariff for only 7-8 months of operating cash. They need, and should have gotten, $40-60 million.
I haven't done all the math but If this deal is with Grifols it looks like they might end up with majority ownership. If so, it's not a great deal at all for the company or retail shareholders.
Wow you really have no clue do you? Six months, after NDA submission, which will happen 3-6 months after data readout/unblinding, which will happen 2-4 months after studies complete, which will happen (best case) in September. The cash they have won't last but another scant few months.