Sat, Jan 31, 2015, 2:35 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed


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

Omeros Corporation (OMER) Message Board

tredleon 84 posts  |  Last Activity: Jan 28, 2015 7:58 PM Member since: Sep 21, 1999
  • tredleon tredleon Nov 3, 2014 7:28 PM Flag

    You may be able to make that assertion (higher dystrophin = better 6MWT performance) if you were testing it on 5-7 year old boys, who clearly have enough functional muscle to carry forward and remain ambulatory for a period of years, but it is clearly obvious you cannot make that assertion on boys who are more progressed and may be on the verge of losing ambulation in a matter of months. The proof is clearly evident in the existing Phase II trials - all boys tested positively for meaningful levels of dystrophin and while as a group the ambulatory boys are performing better than natural history would suggest, there is still a range of variability (some have improved, while others have lost ~30%) that you will not be able to explain or correlate to dystrophin measurements from the arm. Expecting a correlation to exist in this patient group is irrational and only leads to false conclusions when the correlation fails to materialize.

  • tredleon tredleon Nov 3, 2014 5:25 PM Flag

    balert - your presumption that there should be a "correlation" of dystrophin measurements and 6MWT results is off base and one of the key reasons the "market" is dismissing SRPT's results. The dystrophin measures are taken from biopsies of arm muscle. Presumably, given the systemic delivery of Etep, there should be comparable dystrophin production throughout the body, but that has never been tested. More importantly, the dystrophin measure is from functional muscle tissue in the arm and in no way "correlates" or is indicative of how much deterioration of functional muscle tissue has already taken place in the boys' legs.

    It is clear that Etep will not resurrect lost/destroyed muscle tissue - it will only help save what functional tissue remains. So, when it comes to the 6MWT, the key issue of how well a boy will do post-treatment is how much functional tissue remains in their legs that can be salvaged. Dystrophin measurement will do absolutely nothing to predict this, as we know from the twins - their biopsies showed material levels of dystrophin, just as all the boys did.

  • Reply to

    Putting MiTT to rest

    by winterlion7722 Nov 3, 2014 3:07 PM
    tredleon tredleon Nov 3, 2014 5:12 PM Flag

    It was "disparities", whatever that means. I'm hoping CG provides more color on the earnings call regarding the methodology that was used in Phase II trial and what changes are going to be made in that methodology for the 4th biopsy and Phase III trial. If the only practical change is to have more than one hospital/lab/pathologist perform the analysis, then the use of "marked disparities" was a ridiculous and inflammatory description of that issue.

  • Reply to

    Heavy volume today on no news....

    by le_the_ceo Oct 31, 2014 10:59 AM
    tredleon tredleon Nov 3, 2014 7:23 AM Flag

    It was tax-loss selling from mutual funds. Most mutual funds have a 10/31 fiscal year-end, so they book tax losses at the last minute and/or clean up their holdings, so they don't have to show big losing positions in their year-end statements.

22.24-1.1200(-4.79%)Jan 30 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

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.