|
|
Post by agedhippie on Dec 17, 2015 17:01:00 GMT -5
The problem is prior art. The composition has to be tightly drawn because there has been a lot of work in this area dating back to the 90s, although none that I know of which have been commercially exploited.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Dec 17, 2015 17:20:29 GMT -5
I know that today everyone is getting caught up in the Martin mania. But I would like to know, what do you think about this new patent? Is this of any significance? And has such a patent been applied for in the USA?I did not answer because I know nothing.
I did look at the document. FIG. 1 depicts the active GLP-1 plasma concentration in cohort 5 after pulmonary administration of 1.5 mg of GLP-1 dose. The data showed that the peak GLP-1 concentration occurred prior to the first sampling point at 3 minutes, closely resembling intravenous (IV) bolus administration. GLP-1 plasma concentrations in some subjects were greater than 500 pmol/L, the assay limit. Peak active GLP-1 plasma concentrations range from about 150 pmol/L to about 500 pmol/L. Intravenous bolus administration of GLP-1 as reported in the literature (Vilsboll et al. 2000) results in ratios of total:active GLP-1 of 3.0-5.0 compared to a ratio of 1.5 in cohort 5 of this study. At comparable active concentrations the metabolite peaks were 8-9 fold greater following intravenous administration compared to pulmonary administration, suggesting that pulmonary delivery results in rapid delivery and less degradation of GLP-1.
That is fast. screencast.com/t/mPCFGLKJ looks type 2 friendly
|
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Dec 17, 2015 18:55:22 GMT -5
Frankly, I think that the primary reason for the patent is to protect against other BPs creating an inhalable insulin with a delivery mechanism that even comes close to Technosphere.
"The inhalable dry powder formulation preferably comprises a diketopiperazine having the formula 2,5-diketo-3,6-di(4-X-aminobutyl)piperazine and wherein X is selected from the group consisting of succinyl, glutaryl, maleyl, and fumaryl, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof."
Technosphere uses the fumaryl diketopiperazine variety, FDPK, but other pharmaceutical companies might get the bright idea of substituting a different salt to develop their own dry formulations. IMO, this patent is a prudent measure that protects against that happening...or at least makes it much more difficult to avoid patent infringement.
PLUS it reinforces my belief that Sanofi is planning to acquire all the patent rights from MannKind Corporation and is now extending patent protection to fill in any cracks it thinks that MannKind might have missed.
So I was going to make a smart a$$ comment and ask why SNY would be filing for patents to protect MNKD ip if they were going to end the agreement......... But, now I have a serious question. It says the publication date was yesterday, the 16th, but it says the FILING DATE was 10/24/2008..... Any thoughts on that? |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Dec 17, 2015 22:42:24 GMT -5
But, now I have a serious question. It says the publication date was yesterday, the 16th, but it says the FILING DATE was 10/24/2008..... Any thoughts on that? The filing date is the date of the US patent. They are getting the registration current in the EU which is probably a good sign. |
|
|
|
Post by EveningOfTheDay on Dec 18, 2015 1:31:36 GMT -5
It is a sign that, just as we were told, Sanofi is planning on introducing Afrezza in Europe at some point this coming year.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Dec 18, 2015 9:22:30 GMT -5
It's hard to argue against the opinion of my esteemed colleagues...
|
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Dec 18, 2015 9:42:20 GMT -5
cjc04 " But, now I have a serious question. It says the publication date was yesterday, the 16th, but it says the FILING DATE was 10/24/2008..... Any thoughts on that?" Sure, it takes a long time.
|
|
