Thanks Trevor! I enjoyed your article, especially the numbers you have about patients "spreading the word" on the various drugs. That was interesting. I think Trimesta would practically market itself--no need for the company to explain anything complicated about monoclonal antibodies or cellular pathways, as with other MS drugs. The simple fact that pregnant women with MS go into remission explains, and will sell, Trimesta. Keep up the in depth analysis.
Hi Trevor, you're right, and I agree, that the ph2 results might have lead to the fall in PPS--but I think the market misinterpreted the ph2 results. As a SYN shareholder, I sure would like to see that misinterpretation rectified: Trimesta+Copaxone arm OUTPERFORMERED the Copaxone alone arm by 47% the first year, and it OUTPERFORMED Copaxone alone by 32% the 2nd year. Those are fine, fine results. They needed a larger trial to show that *only* a 32% improvement over Copaxone was significant. Trimesta's relapse-rate did not drop between yr1 and yr2--it was constant.
You misinterpret the Trimesta phase 2 trial results. Trimesta results did not see "a significant drop-off" in the 2nd year of the trial; rather, the Copaxone-alone arm saw an improvement--as was expected--Copaxone doesn't kick-in until year two. The Trimesta+Copaxone arm performed consistently across year 1 and 2. Remember, this trial was not against a placebo, it was against an ACTIVE arm. The Trimesta+Copaxone arm outperformed Copaxone alone arm both years. The trial wasn't powered to reach statistical significance year two. Year 1 results suggest that Trimesta may not need Copaxone to be effective.
Latest Comments
Synthetic Biologics: A Compelling Biotech With A Low Valuation
Thanks Trevor! I enjoyed your article, especially the numbers you have about patients "spreading the word" on the various drugs. That was interesting. I think Trimesta would practically market itself--no need for the company to explain anything complicated about monoclonal antibodies or cellular pathways, as with other MS drugs. The simple fact that pregnant women with MS go into remission explains, and will sell, Trimesta. Keep up the in depth analysis.
Synthetic Biologics: A Compelling Biotech With A Low Valuation
Hi Trevor, you're right, and I agree, that the ph2 results might have lead to the fall in PPS--but I think the market misinterpreted the ph2 results. As a SYN shareholder, I sure would like to see that misinterpretation rectified: Trimesta+Copaxone arm OUTPERFORMERED the Copaxone alone arm by 47% the first year, and it OUTPERFORMED Copaxone alone by 32% the 2nd year. Those are fine, fine results. They needed a larger trial to show that *only* a 32% improvement over Copaxone was significant. Trimesta's relapse-rate did not drop between yr1 and yr2--it was constant.
Synthetic Biologics: A Compelling Biotech With A Low Valuation
You misinterpret the Trimesta phase 2 trial results. Trimesta results did not see "a significant drop-off" in the 2nd year of the trial; rather, the Copaxone-alone arm saw an improvement--as was expected--Copaxone doesn't kick-in until year two. The Trimesta+Copaxone arm performed consistently across year 1 and 2. Remember, this trial was not against a placebo, it was against an ACTIVE arm. The Trimesta+Copaxone arm outperformed Copaxone alone arm both years. The trial wasn't powered to reach statistical significance year two. Year 1 results suggest that Trimesta may not need Copaxone to be effective.