|
Post by mnkdfann on Feb 3, 2019 11:15:52 GMT -5
Nope. COFER. Acronym. Definition. COFER. Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (International Monetary Fund database) acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/COFERI am old, I remember when the word was used. How's your weather? Fair enough, I thought you meant coffer, 'a strongbox or small chest for holding valuables'. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cofferWeather until Friday had been unseasonably warm in my part of Western Canada. Today is snowy and -27C (about -17F). Hopefully this will be the worst of winter here, not that it is that bad really.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Feb 3, 2019 10:46:44 GMT -5
Microsoft, Toyota, Pepsi, Doritos, Heh. mango , it would take more money than MNKD has in it's cofers. Love you. Even Planters probably paid more to get the cameo of that guy sitting on the bench ('and people think I'm nuts') than MNKD's entire ad budget. And is cofers is that like Trump's covefe? Or more like coffers? BTW, maybe Mannkind can run commercials in a few markets locally during the SB, but not nationally? Is that possible? It might be able to afford that.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Feb 3, 2019 10:09:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Feb 1, 2019 14:06:02 GMT -5
Feb 1, 2019 consumer.healthday.com/health-technology-information-18/press-medical-and-health-reporting-news-552/health-highlights-feb-1-2019-742264.htmlMedicare/Medicaid Drug Rebates Would be Banned Under Trump Administration Proposal A proposal to ban drug companies from giving rebates to pharmacy benefit managers and insurers in Medicare Part D- and Medicaid-managed care plans was announced Thursday by the Trump administration. Instead of those rebates, drug makers would be urged to provide discounts directly to pharmacy customers, and pharmacy benefit managers would receive a set fee, CNN reported. The proposal would be a major change and was welcomed by the drug industry, but criticized by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers. I don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion about it being a good or bad thing for most individuals, but it looks to be yet another victory for BP. www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-drug-rebate-proposal-could-benefit-pharma-2019-2The drug industry lobbying group PhRMA, which once ran an ad campaign to highlight that drug discounts don't always get passed down to patients, praised the new Trump administration proposal.
"We applaud the Administration for taking steps to reform the rebate system to lower patients' out-of-pocket costs," Stephen Ubl, president and CEO of PhRMA, said in a statement.
Ubl went on to describe the move as fixing the "misaligned incentives" in the US drug system, and said it would help patient with persistent, chronic diseases like diabetes in particular.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Feb 1, 2019 13:59:07 GMT -5
I'd say you off by orders of Magnitude...I mean..by 2030..estimates are 500,000,000 diabetics..73% of type 2 it was once said would only need Afrezza..and then lets say no one on Earth has insurance and its a crazy deal at $4 a day each..a year..how is Afrezza worth $4 billion? Am I missing something here?... $4 ain't bad, until you consider that the world-wide median annual household income worldwide is only $9,733 or $26 a day. IOTW, most of the 500 million diabetics world-wide still won't be able to afford it. I think it has often been said that most pharmas live and die depending on how much they can gouge out of the U.S. health care system. I don't see that changing any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 31, 2019 22:51:33 GMT -5
But to continue from my last post, it seems reasonable to me to believe that UTHR hopes to use technosphere to deliver an inhaled form of Ralinepag.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 31, 2019 22:41:06 GMT -5
Don’t know if it can be inhaled, but if UTHR wants to make Ralinepag inhalable, it’s in the sales contract that UTHR needs to pay extra to ARNA for UTHR to make it inhalable. ....and pay extra to good old Mannkind as well no? Inhalable doesn't necessarily mean using technosphere. Though they certainly might use it. xconomy.com/san-diego/2018/11/15/arenas-comeback-continues-with-800m-deal-for-blood-disease-drug/"A securities filing shows, for instance, shows that Arena will be eligible for a $150 million payment upon the first approval of ralinepag in a “major non-U.S. market,” and another $250 million if the FDA approves an inhaled version of the drug. Arena would get royalties from sales as well." www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1080709/000156459018029645/arna-8k_20181114.htm"Arena will be eligible to receive a payment of $250 million upon U.S. marketing approval of an inhaled formulation of ralinepag" I think (but have no handy link) that Arena is working on a non-technosphere inhaled option.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 31, 2019 22:04:01 GMT -5
Obviously I don't know what UTHR's intentions are, and I wasn't stating I knew them. Rather, I meant that the one drug (Ralinepag) is a next generation drug that targets the same market as the other (Orenitram). By definition, it was intended to be a replacement. Given the dollar amount UTHR paid, I personally believe they must think that Ralinepag is is the future. The discussion below suggests it is superior (though trials may still be required to prove this). www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/comment/commentarena-pharmaceuticals-positive-topline-phase-ii-results-for-ralinepag-pose-threat-for-jjs-uptravi-5876555/"United Therapeutics’ Orenitram (treprostinil) is currently the only marketed oral prostacyclin derivative therapy for PAH. However, it has received a lot of criticism from KOLs that it is fairly inefficacious compared to infusion prostacyclins. Compared to Uptravi’s half-life of six hours, ralinepag boasts a 25-hour half-life, potentially allowing for less frequent dosing and increased patient compliance rates. Based on prior clinical trials, ralinepag is dosed once or twice daily, whereas Orenitram is usually dosed three times a day." Can Ralinrpag be inhaled? Good question, I don't know. But if Ralinepag is a once a day oral tablet, I'm not sure it matters.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 31, 2019 21:58:39 GMT -5
I don't see how it could be bad news. It's nice that the study was good. But I can't help wonder why UTHR signed a $1.2 billion deal ($800 million plus up to $400 million in milestone payments) to license a drug (Ralinepag from Arena) intended to replace Orenitram (treprostinil). I think THAT was bad for Mannkind. s it a fact they intend to replace Trepostinil with it? Can you provide a link? Obviously I don't know what UTHR's intentions are, and I wasn't stating I knew them. Rather, I meant that the one drug (Ralinepag) is a next generation drug that targets the same market as the other (Orenitram). By definition, it was intended to be a replacement. Given the dollar amount UTHR paid, I personally believe they must think that Ralinepag is the future. The discussion below suggests it is superior (though trials may still be required to prove this). www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/comment/commentarena-pharmaceuticals-positive-topline-phase-ii-results-for-ralinepag-pose-threat-for-jjs-uptravi-5876555/"United Therapeutics’ Orenitram (treprostinil) is currently the only marketed oral prostacyclin derivative therapy for PAH. However, it has received a lot of criticism from KOLs that it is fairly inefficacious compared to infusion prostacyclins. Compared to Uptravi’s half-life of six hours, ralinepag boasts a 25-hour half-life, potentially allowing for less frequent dosing and increased patient compliance rates. Based on prior clinical trials, ralinepag is dosed once or twice daily, whereas Orenitram is usually dosed three times a day."
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 31, 2019 21:38:18 GMT -5
So interesting, I am getting mixed opinions from people. Most are thinking this is bad for Mannkind. I see it as positive news. Would love to know what others are thinking. I don't see how it could be bad news. It's nice that the study was good. But I can't help wonder why UTHR signed a $1.2 billion deal ($800 million plus up to $400 million in milestone payments) to license a drug (Ralinepag from Arena) intended to replace Orenitram (treprostinil). I think THAT was bad for Mannkind.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 31, 2019 18:40:25 GMT -5
Moral: Internet shaming works!
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 31, 2019 13:10:05 GMT -5
To get major celebrities on-board and on Afrezza, perhaps Mannkind should target the private practice Hollywood doctors to the stars? www.medicalbag.com/practice-prognosis/doctors-to-the-stars/article/472907/"Doctors Building Celeb-Centric Practices - A quick search for celebrity doctors reveals many practices, particularly in Hollywood, that are designed with celebrity patients in mind. These offices offer concierge services, including 24/7 house calls, the ability to jet set to clients in a pinch, and room service–style prescription drug delivery. Whereas these doctors do not have any special licensure or degree in dealing with celebrities, their medical practices are tailored to those living in the celebrity world."
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 31, 2019 13:05:32 GMT -5
I assume products celebs do or might promote are affected by conditions in existing contracts they might have, or hope to have.
Signing a contract to promote any drug of one company may include a condition that you never promote a drug for any other company. And if you sign to promote one company's drug, perhaps you are then effectively dead to companies with competing drugs.
Major celebs (i.e. above the level of Dame Dash) may not be willing to promote a smaller company's product for a relatively small paycheck if it means they are cutting themselves off from more lucrative future endorsement opportunities elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 29, 2019 17:31:21 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you are replying to. I didn't say people wouldn't listen to Kendall, I didn't say anyone had lost respect for him. Perhaps you don't understand how papers are refereed? Top journals have low acceptance rates, no matter who you are. Most have blinded refereeing, so the referees won't even know the paper is written by Kendall. Since Afrezza is so relatively new and so few researchers have experience with it, the referees are (IMO) more likely than not going to be cautious or skeptical about any paper on it. That's just how referees often operate. And Kendall can't quicken the steps to it takes to publish in a top tier journal. If that's what he is trying to do, it will take him about as much time as it would take anyone else (and that could be a long while). If some overworked referee is sitting on the paper (or has forgotten about it until the Associate Editor gets around to sending another reminder), there is not much he can do about that, either. I don't quite understand your use of the term "referee" (maybe the NFL playoffs is influencing your choice of words?). The primary criteria for inclusion/acceptance into Lancet, NEJM and AMA includes whether the data/paper submission is medically relevant (aka viable alternative to current practices) and includes verifiable references to all data supportive of any claims. Reviewers meticulously validate the data behind the claim(s) So one of the most common actions that delays publication are reviewer requests for additional supportive references. For example, if the authors wrote that Time-in-Range has been acknowledged as an important and key measurement for diabetes treatment, Lancet may request a footnote (if one wasn't provided) to a reference which validates such a statement, such as publications from the Beyond A1c conference conducted by the FDA with key diabetes leaders. By referee, I just mean reviewer. In my field(s), the two words are pretty much used interchangeably, and the words review and referee can be nouns and / or verbs. Wiley (a big journal publisher as I'm sure you know) uses both phrases: authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/index.html"We want to do everything we can to support reviewers (also sometimes known as "referees") and to recognize their contribution." Lancet, an example you brought up, talks of reviewers who referee in its review process. ees.elsevier.com/thelancet/"Welcome to the online submission and peer review system for The Lancet. This site enables authors to submit material online, reviewers to referee online, and editors to manage the peer-review process." No biggie.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 29, 2019 17:16:44 GMT -5
I posted about nominating Mike a month ago. The time for nominating him has now passed. We'll see soon whether enough people chose to do so or not. mnkd.proboards.com/thread/10750/2019-appa-pharmaceutical-industry-awardsThat thread was viewed over 250 times, yet no one spoke up in it to support Mike. Understandably, at the time he wasn't the most popular guy (due to the public offering etc.).
|
|