|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 23, 2015 12:42:41 GMT -5
To bring it back on topic (please do not stray).
How to NRx numbers flow into TRx.
When renewing (old script is expired, no more refills), a new NRx generated and added back into the TRx Total?
Need to account for the Renewal not being in the TRx count by dropping 1 off upon renewal.
This NRx then flows into the TRx count for no net change.
This is what I am trying to confirm.
OOG
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 23, 2015 12:13:54 GMT -5
I suggested that the first box (90 units) was the freebie and that the other two boxes made up the 480ish average per prescription. Trying to work out a model that shows demand and capacity curves, accounting for when lines come into full scale production while negating the effects on capacity that the sample might have.
Will try to push it to my post on TRx and NRx calcs once I gt the warm and fuzzies that I know how the two count towards the others reported numbers.
OOOG
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 23, 2015 12:10:32 GMT -5
90 k / (12 * 1.5) = 90 / 18 = 5000 (beginning to wonder if that 900M or even 9M boxes)
Line 1 is capable of producing 166k * 12 = 1992000 per year = 38,307 boxes a week
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 23, 2015 10:50:03 GMT -5
How many MNKD non believers have you either converted or disposed of?
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 23, 2015 9:17:51 GMT -5
For the dumb guy in the room here I am looking for some opinions/clarification here on how to calculate the current script levels and annual subscribers to Afrezza.
If we have a new script show up in the NRx at week X, that would show a new script has just been picked up.
3 Months Prescription The script is for a 3 month supply and the all 3 month are pick up at that point.
Does this NRx number then count in the TRx for the full 90 Days which includes the NRx period ?
What happens to the counts at X + 3 months + Y, does this script count drop off the TRx count and republish as a NRx which is added to the TRx?
1 Month Prescription with 2 refills NRx occurs at month x patient gets 1st box At x + 1 month patient gets 2nd box, NRx drops off but script continues in TRx At x + 2 months patient get 3rd box, script continues in TRx
At x + 3 months script gets reported as a new NRx drops from the old TRx but is added back as a NRx into the TRx total.
Is there a methodology to determine the numbers of drop outs using the basic scenarios above?
How does it affect the model if we assume a 90 unit box was supposed to be a 1 month supply but are now seeing that it closer to 1.5 boxes per month due to customization by users.
OOG
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 23, 2015 8:11:49 GMT -5
Interesting the "first one is free". Does this mean that on say a 90 day supply (supposedly 3 boxes), the cost would be 0 + X + X?
This might explain the average costs of prescription being filled at 480 range and allow us to assume that they have insurance companies have negotiated a price of approx. 240 per box of 60x8U,30x4U vs the previously noted costs of approx. $287.
OOG
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 22, 2015 15:55:46 GMT -5
I have posted another calculation that shows Demand outstripping Capacity in November even with three lines firing from beginning of April if we see a week over week growth rate of 18%.
This 18% isn't looking like it is happening any longer but my model also assumed only 1 box per month and not the current viewed consensous of 1.5 boxes per month. Maybe a 12% is more applicable with 1.5 boxes. Will need to adjust the timelines for when lines 2 & 3 actually came on line, along with the 12u availability.
Might be time for me to go back and review it using the "new" numbers over the last 12 weeks.
OOG
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 22, 2015 15:24:18 GMT -5
Just doing the quick numbers:
MNKD is receiving 20% of $250 or approx. $50 per box.
450M / 50 = 9M boxes = 9M / (1.5 * 12) (most user are seeing 1.5 boxes per month) = 500,000 annual users
Not possible to meet this demand until lines 2 & 3 start production.
OOG
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 21, 2015 15:17:48 GMT -5
Regul Pept. 2012 Nov 10;179(1-3):71-6. doi: 10.1016/j.regpep.2012.08.009. Epub 2012 Sep 4. Receptor-mediated inhibition of small bowel migrating complex by GLP-1 analog ROSE-010 delivered via pulmonary and systemic routes in the conscious rat. Hellström PM1, Smithson A, Stowell G, Greene S, Kenny E, Damico C, Leone-Bay A, Baughman R, Grant M, Richardson P. Author information 1Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Per.Hellstrom@medsci.uu.se Abstract BACKGROUND: ROSE-010, a Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog, reduces gastrointestinal motility and relieves acute pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The rat small bowel migrating myoelectric complex (MMC) is a reliable model of pharmacological effects on gastrointestinal motility. Accordingly, we investigated whether ROSE-010 works through GLP-1 receptors in gut musculature and its effectiveness when administered by pulmonary inhalation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rats were implanted with bipolar electrodes at 5, 15 and 25 cm distal to pylorus and myoelectric activity was recorded. First, intravenous or subcutaneous injections of ROSE-010 or GLP-1 (1, 10, 100 μg/kg) with or without the GLP-1 receptor blocker exendin(9-39)amide (300 μg/kg·h), were studied. Second, ROSE-010 (100, 200 μg/kg) Technosphere® powder was studied by inhalation. RESULTS: The baseline MMC cycle length was 17.5±0.8 min. GLP-1 and ROSE-010, administered intravenously or subcutaneously, significantly inhibited myoelectric activity and prolonged MMC cycling; 100 μg/kg completely inhibited spiking activity for 49.1±4.2 and 73.3±7.7 min, while the MMC cycle length increased to 131.1±11.4 and 149.3±15.5 min, respectively. Effects of both drugs were inhibited by exendin(9-39)amide. Insufflation of ROSE-010 (100, 200 μg/kg) powder formulation totally inhibited myoelectric spiking for 52.6±5.8 and 70.1±5.4 min, and increased MMC cycle length to 102.6±18.3 and 105.9±9.5 min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary delivery of ROSE-010 inhibits gut motility through the GLP-1R similar to natural GLP-1. ROSE-010 causes receptor-mediated inhibition of MMC comparable to that of intravenous or subcutaneous administration. This suggests that ROSE-010 administered as a Technosphere® inhalation powder has potential in IBS pain management and treatment. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22960405
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 21, 2015 15:14:55 GMT -5
Horm Metab Res. 2003 May;35(5):319-23. Pilot study with technosphere/PTH(1-34)--a new approach for effective pulmonary delivery of parathyroid hormone (1-34). Pfützner A1, Flacke F, Pohl R, Linkie D, Engelbach M, Woods R, Forst T, Beyer J, Steiner SS.
Author information 1MannKind Biopharmaceuticals, 1 Casper Street, Danbury, CT, USA. AndreasP@IKFE.de
Abstract Sequential subcutaneous PTH injection therapy (repeated 14 days of PTH administration and a subsequent treatment pause for a few weeks) is known to increase bone mineral density in patients with osteopenic disorders. Alternative methods of drug delivery may be beneficial in increasing compliance. A pilot study was performed in 10 healthy volunteers (4 female/6-male, age: 25.6 +/- 3.5 years, BMI: 22.3 +/- 2.4 kg/m 2, mean +/- SD) to assess the pharmacokinetic profiles of 1600 IU of PTH(1 - 34) using the pulmonary Technosphere drug delivery system in comparison to a subcutaneous injection of 400 IU. The treatments were administered in the morning after an overnight fast and blood samples for measurement of PTH(1 - 34), PTH(1 - 84), and calcium and calcitonin were taken over a period of 6 hours. Both injection and pulmonary application of PTH(1 - 34) were well tolerated. After pulmonary administration of Technosphere/PTH(1 - 34), PTH(1 - 34) appeared in the serum with a faster concentration increase (T max: pulmonary 10 +/- 5 min vs. subcutaneous 28 +/- 8 min, p < 0.001) and with higher maximal concentrations (C max : pulmonary 309 +/- 215 pmol/l vs. subcutaneous 102 +/- 45 pmol/l, p < 0.05) as compared to the subcutaneous injection. The relative bioavailability of pulmonary Technosphere/PTH(1 - 34) was calculated to be 48 %. No differences were seen between pulmonary and subcutaneous application with regard to the PTH(1 - 84), calcitonin and calcium concentrations. In conclusion, pulmonary application of Technosphere/PTH(1 - 34) appears to be an effective and thus attractive candidate for PTH substitution therapy in osteoporosis and other conditions leading to a decrease in bone mineral density.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12916003
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 21, 2015 14:47:39 GMT -5
And there are none avail at 28%, sounds to me like they are getting harder to come by, but then I have thought that since the short count was half of what it is now.
Wonder how many of these short shares have gone out the revolving door to buyers that then lend them out the revolving door again, with the interest generated used to by more shares that also go out the door and so on, and so on,...
Sounds to me like the rope is getting so long, that its not going to just break their necks, it going to rip their heads right off.
OOG
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 21, 2015 13:45:19 GMT -5
From the PDF:
------------------DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS --------------- AFREZZA is available as single-use cartridges of: (3) •4 units •8 units •12 units
The dosage pdf must be a new addition in the last few hours because the site only showed the letter this morning.
Great news!
OOG
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 21, 2015 13:39:56 GMT -5
Thar she blows (or should I say inhales)...
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 21, 2015 11:25:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by otherottawaguy on Apr 21, 2015 9:21:40 GMT -5
Morningstar just increase the ranking of Mannkind from 3 stars to 4 stars:
Stock Security Description Source Rating Date Previous Rating Current Rating Price Date Previous Target Price Current Target Price MNKD MANNKIND Morningstar Equity Research 17/04/2015 3 Star 4 Star
DEFINITION of 'Morningstar Risk Rating' A ranking ranging from one to five stars, with one being the poorest rank and five being the best, given to publicly traded mutual funds and ETFs by the investment research firm Morningstar.
|
|