|
|
Post by compound26 on Nov 18, 2021 20:30:14 GMT -5
 BD I have 4-5 major holdings. TSLA by far the largest and followed by MNKD. So good to see you❣️ Same to you! @sportsrancho |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Nov 18, 2021 19:36:20 GMT -5
You own 59 stocks? How do you keep up with news related to so many? I struggle to keep up with 8-10 at any one time. A while ago I decide 8-10, my former norm, was too many, and reduced it to 4-5. And I'm really close to reducing it to two, TSLA and MNKD. I have 4-5 major holdings. TSLA by far the largest and followed by MNKD. |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Mar 18, 2020 9:55:21 GMT -5
To me, this is a very wise decision. At this difficult time, this will help immensely to keep Mannkind's shares from being crushed by the market day to day.
|
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Mar 1, 2020 17:12:03 GMT -5
Could be associated with UTHR. Certainly not sales goals associated with Afrezza. “1. On August 24, 2017, the reporting person was granted an option that vests upon the achievement of certain defined performance milestones. On February 25, 2020, one of the defined performance milestones was met, resulting in the partial vesting of the option.” My reading of the above sentence lead me to believe the above "one of the defined performance milestones" is performance milestone for each of the officers, not Mannkind. Note that when the options were granted, there were no UTHR partnership. So it is unlikely to be something related to UTHR. Plus if something that is a performance milestone with respect to UTHR occurred on Feb. 25, 2020, Mannkind has an obligation to disclose it to the investors. After all, they had the quarterly conference call on Feb. 25, 2020. It probably is not something with respect to the sales goals associated with Afrezza as Feb. 25, 2020 does not appear to be a date that associates with such a goal. Mannkind technically would not have the official sales numbers up to Feb. 25, 2020. It appears to me that this defined perforce milestone is that such person remains being employed by Mannkind on the conference call date for the fourth quarter 2019 conference call, which happens to be Feb 25, 2020. Such date is about 2 and half years from the date the option was originally granted. Plus, it is a performance milestone that each of the officers that have options vested met. I believe the above to be reasonable explanation since most of the time, the main condition in respect of whether an option grant is vested is just that the employee remains employed with the company for a certain length of period. |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jan 14, 2020 12:49:42 GMT -5
Simply because this is the first we’ve heard about the stability testing. We had talked much before about completion this year and not about 2 1/2 years from now for commercialization Mango. Did they start the stabilization study? I listened to the Q&A where Martine comments on it and it does sound like it’s been started already. I also emailed MannKind IR about it 10 minutes ago and will post the reply here (if I receive one). They must have started it. Based on the Q&A, my understanding is that this stability test needs 12-months to complete. I think they probably started the test sometime before end of the year 2019 and therefore the test will finish sometime before end of the year 2020. It appears the explanation at the following web page makes senses for our case: camargopharma.com/resources/blog/stability-requirements-in-the-505b2-space-why-what-when-how"For submission of the NDA, the requirement is for 6 months of data from product stored and tested under accelerated conditions (40°C/75%RH), and twelve months for the long-term studies (25°C/60%RH)." "Hurry up and wait. That’s the seemingly eternal impact of developmental stability on the new drug development process. The question always asked is: “How can the developer minimize the wait part?” At the top level you can’t. It will always take six months to get six months of data and twelve to get twelve. But you can lessen the impact with early, thorough planning, starting soon after the development of the initial Target Product Profile." |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jan 13, 2020 17:09:17 GMT -5
Someone asked a question on this. Breeze trial enrollment expected to complete by May 2020. 12-month product stability test to complete by end of 2020. FDA submission is expected end of year 2020. Product (TreT) will probably be launched in the fourth quarter of 2021 or first half of 2022.
|
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Oct 14, 2019 19:54:23 GMT -5
Al Mann was CEO for the Agreement. Matt Pfeffer was when Sanofi gave it back. His first hire was Mike Castagna. Pfeffer got $175M in settlement. More than enough for a successful relaunch if he’d hired the right person for the job, IMO. The settlement consists mostly a forgiveness of obligations owed by Mannkind to Sanofi in their partnership. To my recollection, Mannkind only got around $40 million cash via an insulin put, which was part of the settlement. Additionally, to my recollection, the total amount of settlement was in the neighborhood of $120 million (see the announcement below), not $175 million (though under the license agreement between Mannkind and Sanofi, Sanofi did agree to advance to MannKind its share of the collaboration’s expenses up to a limit of $175 million investors.mannkindcorp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sanofi-and-mannkind-announce-global-licensing-agreement-afrezzar). www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/11/10/888582/0/en/MannKind-and-Sanofi-Reach-Agreement-on-AFREZZA.htmlVALENCIA, Calif., Nov. 09, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- MannKind Corporation (NASDAQ:MNKD) (TASE:MNKD) today announced that MannKind and Sanofi have entered into an agreement with the following terms: The promissory note and security agreement between MannKind and Aventisub LLC, a Sanofi affiliate, are terminated, with Aventisub agreeing to forgive the full outstanding loan balance of $71.56 million. MannKind is also relieved from its obligation to pay $0.5 million in previously uncharged costs related to the collaboration. Sanofi will purchase $10.2 million worth of insulin from MannKind in early December as part of its preexisting commitment to purchase insulin following termination of the collaboration and MannKind’s exercise of a “put” option. The balance of the insulin “put” option ($30.6 million) is accelerated with Sanofi completing the cash payment of $30.6 million to MannKind by January 9, 2017. This payment will be made without MannKind being required to deliver any insulin to Sanofi. All issues arising out of the license and collaboration agreement, the supply agreement, the promissory note, the security agreement and the transition agreement are resolved. |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Oct 3, 2019 13:09:04 GMT -5
Some new tidbits and/or insights for me were... - MC's reference to the TS platform as the companies "secret sauce", it's the foundation and will be very important (maybe more important than Afrezza?) in the company's future. It seemed to me in the past that the company had been performing this very delicate balancing act of "where does our money go?". My takeaway is that more focused investing into the TS platform compound development now is needed for future support of Afrezza growth. I've wondered where the priority was in the past, but this provided some clarity of me. Not saying it's right or wrong, some folks have strong opinions on that, but that was just some clarity from my perspective.
- Brazil shipment is at or through customs.
- MC referred to the pediatric study more in this presentation that any other from memory. He linked it to changing the standard of care and put a 20-year time from on it. I don't think he actually meant the ADA SOC, but diabetic behavior in general once the pioneer pediatric users of Afrezza continue use in the future as adults. With P3 peds trial to start in 2020, through FDA approval and trial participants reaching adulthood...about 20 years. Can't say that number excited me much, but ultimately getting the peds approval would be huge...still a couple years out though.
- No decision has been made regarding the undisclosed UTHR molecule...despite rumors to the contrary. The molecule is scheduled to start rodent toxicity studies in Q4 or Q1-2020.
- When talking about the pipeline, MC referred to a 2-5 year time frame for receiving milestones payments from UTHR and RLS. Work continues for RLS for an FDA approved product (probably some non FDA as well?). This is the first time I can remember an actual number put on RLS milestones. It's not exactly nailed down by any means, but I think the "2" refers to UTHR and the "5" likely refers to RLS. I hope the 5 is on the conservative side.
- The Pfizer safety data for Exhubra was brought up and referred to as safety data for "inhaled insulin". We already knew it was out there but I think it was the first time presented at an investor conference. (Why did Pfizer do that?...seems odd).
- While at the conference MC met with a group of physicians and asked who was stuck on Afrezza dosing limitations with 4, 8, 12. Apparently many were and MC said "Speed trumps accuracy". Afrezza's speed of action is more important than getting the RAA injected dose down to the fraction of a unit. That was portrayed as an "Ahha" moment to them. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but I like the statement "Speed trumps accuracy" and hope it is used more often and sticks. I'm no doctor and there are probably some folks who don't agree with that statement, but I think it's catchy and straight to the point.
- Interest expense has been reduced from 20 mil to 4 mill on an annual basis. Assume it will now be paid for a longer time period, but at this point in time, that move makes sense.
- Towards the end of the presentation (Slide 24) collaborative revenue...MC says "I continue to get inbound calls for the platform to put other peoples drugs on our platform".
- One question during Q&A - Regarding Technosphere - "What's lead to the inbound interest in partnering given that TS has been around for awhile?" MNKD is going to start attending conferences specifically for inhaled platforms. MC referred to one in Europe where TS had been brought up as one to watch which generated three calls. MC also referred to the increased financial stability of the company as a reason for increased interest. It was interesting that whoever brought up TS at the Europe conference had no connection to MNKD and MC didn't know who they were.
One person's perspective... Good summary.....I can't go in depth right now but one slide stuck out for me. Mike purposely told CF about the 4 Analysts covering MNKD and their Price Targets. He also said that when the money starts flowing in they will have to raise their targets. This is definitely the first time he has done this. Almost saying to CF....you better jump on board now before the train leaves the station. He was very confident if not cocky in mentioning when the money starts rolling in. Regarding the 4 Analysts covering MNKD and their Price Targets, MC specifically noted that in these analysts' reports, most of them did not include international sales of Afrezza or royalties of Treprostinil. Therefore, MC says the price target in these reports will be moved up once these sales/milestones kicks in. |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Sept 13, 2019 9:42:01 GMT -5
I want to make a few comments about the Castagna rejoinder article posted by Spencer Osborn. I really don’t have the time to engage in an extensive back and forth with Mike, so I won’t be posting often. Mikes posts/comments are littered with inaccuracies, many of them intentional. He wants to discredit Vdex and me, and I understand that. We’ve been critical. It’s natural to be hostile one’s critics. Unfortunately, Mike is undermined by his own lack of success in promoting Afrezza. What Vdex has proven is that there is a strategy to make Afrezza the multi-billion-dollar annual drug that it should be. As I posted in another thread, we at Vdex will be sharing more information about that soon. Mike, for all his vaunted successes, hasn’t figured out how to do it. I honestly believe he doesn’t want to see Vdex/HFM succeed because of ego: he didn’t come up with the solution. That’s cynical, but it’s what I believe. But the most important thing people on this board or otherwise should know is that Afrezza really is, as Al Mann said, one the most significant pharmaceutical advancements ever. Let me give some detail here: diabetes is medicine’s great failure. There’s no truer way to say it. Medicine has failed to control this disease. Billions have been spent and billions more will be, but none of the pharmaceutical agents does the job. Even if one gets a patient’s HbA1c down to the ADA-recommended 7%, that’s still not doing the job. Microvascular damage is still occurring at that level. Amputations, blindness, dialysis, etc. are still in the picture. Afrezza changes all that. With Afrezza we can bring BG levels, in many cases, to normal: below 5.7%. With Afrezza we can finally control the disease. And, Afrezza is the ONLY way to do it. Afrezza really is the magic bullet. Imagine the gain to humanity as this product is properly rolled out. Therefore, it is critical to protect this product. We must see this succeed. We need to protect it from the incompetent and the venal. We need to guard it as the crown jewel that it is. Profligate spending by MNKD doesn’t just hurt our stock price; it endangers Afrezza. Better to do nothing than spend wastefully. Everything I see in the Castagna strategy falls into the latter category. Sorry if that offends, but put aside the emotions and examine the situation objectively, and you’re likely to come to the same conclusion. Wow! Bill, while I applaud your efforts in setting up the VDEX clinics and helping making Afrezza a success, what you wrote above is really disappointing. " Mikes posts/comments are littered with inaccuracies, many of them intentional. He wants to discredit Vdex and me, and I understand that. We’ve been critical. It’s natural to be hostile one’s critics. Unfortunately, Mike is undermined by his own lack of success in promoting Afrezza." Thinking about it, it appears to me what you just wrote above applies to what you have done and said to Mike over the last several months very well. Your post above is a good example of that. "What Vdex has proven is that there is a strategy to make Afrezza the multi-billion-dollar annual drug that it should be." When did VDEX prove that? How did VDEX prove that? If VDEX has set up hundreds of clinics and generated thousands of weekly prescripts of Afrezza, I would totally agree this has been proven. Or alternatively, if someone comes up with $500 million to bankroll VDEX because he/she sees the great potential of VDEX, I would also agree this has been proven. However, at this point, I would think you should consider changing your claim to "What Vdex believes is that there is a strategy to make Afrezza the multi-billion-dollar annual drug that it should be." " Profligate spending by MNKD doesn’t just hurt our stock price; it endangers Afrezza. Better to do nothing than spend wastefully. Everything I see in the Castagna strategy falls into the latter category." There are layers upon layers accusations in just this one sentence! Is Mankind's spending profligate? That's debatable. Does it endanger Afrezza? Again that's very much debatable. At least to me, Afrezza now has a much better chance to survive and succeed than a couple years ago after years of "profligate spending my Mannkind" as you would call it. Better to do nothing than spend wastefully?Again, it is debatable whether Mannkind is spending wastefully. But is it better to do nothing? Going back three years to the time right after Sanofi handed back Afrezza to Mannkind, Afrezza's week sales dropped to about $150,000 per week at around mid 2016. Annualized, it is about $7.8 million annual total prescription in dollars (based on Symphony numbers), which translates to an annual net revenue of about $3.5 million. You see, during that period of doing nothing (to Afrezza), Afrezza's sale actually dropped continuingly. Think about it, Dexcom's CGM first got FDA's approval in 2006. If Dexcom has done nothing to promote it, where would it be today? IMHO, in this fiercely competed market, if one does not promote its own product, it will be killed by its competitors pretty easily. Everything I see in the Castagna strategy falls into the latter category. Really, everything? Is it a mistake to conduct the STAT study? The Levin study? To have the packaging fixed? To try out inexpensive means of advertising (such as posters)? To try to have Afrezza approved in overseas (like Brazil)? To have the Afrezza label updated to more accurately reflect its PK/PD profile? ……. |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Sept 13, 2019 7:11:25 GMT -5
Even Spencer thinks and I’m pretty sure always has that Afrezza should be sold or leased out and Mannkind should concentrate on the pipeline. Sell or lease out Afrezza? To whom and for how much? I think this is easier said than done. Going back three years to the time right after Sanofi handed back Afrezza to Mannkind, Afrezza's week sales dropped to about $150,000 per week at around mid 2016. Annualized, it is about $7.8 million annual total prescription in dollars (based on Symphony numbers), which translates to an annual net revenue of about $3.5 million. Given such a small sale number and the fact that Sannofi spent several million dollars promoting Afrezza (we know their efforts were probably not the most effective ones, but nevertheless they did spent millions of dollars promoting Afrezza) and had been unsuccessful in marketing Afrezza and had reached an conclusion that Afrezza can't be successfully marked in the U.S., were there any other major pharma interested at buying or leasing Afrezza? I would doubt that. Even if there were some major pharma interested in buying or leasing Afrezza, how much will it pay? Based on the situation described above, probably a pittance (i.e., Mannkind probably won't get much out of such a sale or lease). Even if some other major pharma actually bought or leased Afrezza, how much success would they have? I think the chance for it to be more successful than Sanofi or Mannkind have achieved is not very high. One can not deny that Sanofi had the infrastructure and Mannkind had the passion (one could not argue that Mannkind had that. After all, Afrezza is its own baby). Thinking through this, if Mannkind had sold or leased out Afrezza, the most likely result would be: (a) Mannkind did not get much cash from such sale or lease; and (b) the buyer would not achieve much success in marketing Afrezza. Since Afrezza is an adopted child of such buyer, it probably would make a decision like Sanofi made -- pulling out from marketing of Afrezza after one or two years of unsuccessful marketing efforts. At that point of time, Afrezza probably would be pulled out of market completely. If that had happened, it would have been the biggest regret to Al Mann and his successors. |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 23, 2019 0:42:11 GMT -5
... 6) The board makes the decision who is CEO not me and if you recall our stock was at ~70 cents a share and $70M market cap in May 2017...2 years ago. However I have personally lead and built teams that launched and relaunched many innovations in our industry and my track record speaks for itself and the teams I have built have all gone on to do amazing things. Here at MannKind I did make the decision to fund the label change and buy back the warrants instead of causing dilution... that got our stock price moving and enabled us to raise $60M without warrants, I did hire one of the best managment teams in this industry who I stand by, I did organize the deals for 3 ex-US opportunities, I did fund TreT to give us our first pipeline compound which no other CEO/CFO had done in last 10 years. This deal resulted in $105M deal + royalties and an expansion of our high potency manufacturing capabilities that didn’t exist two years ago and put us back on the map to talk with pharma partners. We also made the decision to fund two trials demonstrating how great Afrezza is with CGM before people even knew CGM was the next standard just like CGM took time to adopt so does Afrezza. These are just some of the decisions we have made while everyone watches weekly scripts. We laid out a foundation for significant growth and value creation. ... I liked the first 5 bullets, they were very informative, but then the rest fell into self-justification. Mike has his achievements, the UTHR deal, but then Matt kept the company alive after the Sanofi pull out and got compensation from Sanofi which I said at the time was impossible (kudos Matt). Lets pick apart bullet 6: ..~70 cents a share - Mike took over at the end of May by which time the share price had recovered to $1.55 vs the $1.15 where it closed on Friday. .. buy back the warrants instead of causing dilution - when did that happen? We have had warrants expire, but I do not believe that they were ever bought back. These are very different things, buy backs are management decisions, warrants expiring are not. (Genuinely curious because warrants are a hobby of mine).
To set the record straight on this: agedhippie your recollection on this was inaccurate and michaelcastagna was correct. See below: mnkd.proboards.com/post/123081/threadItem 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement. Warrant Exchange Agreements On September 29, 2017, MannKind Corporation (the “Company”) and the four holders of all outstanding Series A Common Stock Purchase Warrants and Series B Common Stock Purchase Warrants of the Company (collectively, the “Warrants”) entered into separate, privately-negotiated exchange agreements (the “Exchange Agreements”), pursuant to which the Company agreed to issue to such holders an aggregate of 1,292,508 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Exchange Shares”) in exchange for the Warrants. The closings of the exchanges contemplated by the Exchange Agreements are expected to occur on October 3, 2017, subject to the satisfaction of certain closing conditions. The foregoing description of the Exchange Agreements is qualified in its entirety by reference to the form of Exchange Agreement, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this report. Item 3.02 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities. The information set forth under Item 1.01 of this report is incorporated by reference into this Item 3.02. The Company offered the Exchange Shares in reliance on the exemption from registration provided by Section 3(a)(9) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. This report does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any security and shall not constitute an offer, solicitation or sale in any jurisdiction in which such offering would be unlawful. Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/8703/form-8?page=1#ixzz5reB1rpLh |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 21, 2019 20:15:12 GMT -5
Michael Castagna closed the deal on Kendall after he became CEO and, while he has never publicly taken all the credit, he also never refuted the belief the the hiring of our reputable CMO was all his idea (to his credit). Pfeffer hired Castagna and was targeting Dr. Kendall. So how did Castagna wind up becoming CEO? I believe that was largely maneuvered by Castagna, himself, convincing the Mann Group, who was tight with the Board of Directors, that he was more qualified than Matt to be CEO. My opinion as a shareholder, after a couple years of evaluating his performance, is that Castagna is not qualified to be CEO. He throws a great curve ball, but is unable to get the ball across the plate. Do you think Pfeffer couldn't have secured deals with Brazil and India (by the way, if you haven't noticed, Cipla is currently in a severe tailspin in drug sales and is on the verge of total collapse). Pfeffer would have got China, Mexico and Europe. IMO, castagna took advantage of the Mann family to his advantage and hoped to "learn on the fly" once he replaced Pfeffer. His decision to reward himself and the team he put together seems clearly based on the hope securing the loyalty of his team rather than rewarding them for performance. I stop here by simply saying that Alfred Mann was a legend, Hakan Edstrom was a brilliant product developer and Matthew Pfeffer was 100% committed to bring Al Mann's vision to reality. As CEO, he hired excellent people and was executing his plan to hire more when Castagna made his bold move against Pfeffer. I have the the utmost respect for the first three CEOs. I've lost all respect for Michael Castagna. In my opinion he will either destroy this company or, under his inept leadership, the company will be sold for a fraction of its value. I would respectfully disagree. I will not comment on the personality or personal characters of any of them as I am not close enough to comment on any of them. However, based on their performance in their respective tenure as CEO as Mannkind, MC clearly out-performed each of Matt and Hakan. Hakan's performance as a CEO was indeed awful. He did not do anything while Sanofi was slowly killing the Sanofi Afrezza launch. The only impression I have with respect to him was that painful plea for partners on the quarterly conference call. Matt indeed saved the company by choosing to get back Afrezza and go it alone and then negotiated settlement with Sanofi to get $50 million cash settlement (and some additional forgiveness of debt). Matt also signed the Receptor Life deal, which so far has yielded not much. MC on the other hand, has so far achieved quite a few things, the UT deal (worth at least $100 + million), the $6 offering (bring in $50 million at a very good offering price), growing Afrezza sales significantly (okay, not fast enough to us shareholders, but we are at weekly sales of $1.1 million today vs the Sanofi high water of $0.34 million, with a sales of 75 people (which is about 1/7 of that of Sanofi), advanced trials (STAT and recent trials), improved Afrezza titration, etc.. There are certainly blunders by MC. However, Matt was acting as CEO for about one and a half years. MC has been CEO for about two years. From my perspective, during their respective tenure, so far MC has scored in quite a few more fronts than Matt. |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on May 8, 2019 13:18:42 GMT -5
Harry I took it to mean they are working on prepping for Trep T to produce for trials and until UTHR builds their own production facility. Yes, based on my understanding of Mike's presentation, the completion of the building of this manufacturing facility (for Trep) is the condition for UTHR to pay the next $12.5 million of the milestone payments. |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on May 7, 2019 7:57:58 GMT -5
Just for reference, Afrezza net revenue in Q4 2018 was $5.7M, Q1 2019 was $5.1M with the $9.3M TV campaign and the DTC program. Just for reference, We also continued to grow Afrezza net revenue by 49% compared to 1Q 2018 and we released new clinical data at scientific meetings that continue to differentiate Afrezza from other rapid acting insulins,” said Michael Castagna. The MNKD cup is half full ... not half empty. For comparison, also note 2018 first quarter afrezza revenue was 3.4 million vs 4.5 million in fourth quarter 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Apr 12, 2019 12:00:03 GMT -5
I am not advocating for either the sale of Afrezza or the company. And for the record, I never thought TV ads would be the answer. They are necessary to a degree for reasons I have previously posted. And you statement is really apples to oranges when you compare the past Sanofi rights payments for a then new Afrezza to the valuation of the whole company today. Nonetheless, in answer to your question a lot has changed since Sanofi bought and then terminated their deal with mnkd. Consider the following has happened since mnkd received back the rights to Afrezza: 1. Rev has increased over Sanofi peak many times over on less marketing spend 2. ADA/SOC has become slightly more positive towards Afrezza 3. The Stat Study proves the benefits of Afrezza 4. Tresiba was launched and when paired with Afrezza appears to give significantly better than normal results 5. CGM's have become much more main stream with much more room for growth, showing the beneifts of Afrezza in real time and for TIR 6. The Facebook page and other social media adopters are growing 7. The tritation issues and lung test issues are no longer issues 8. Vdex has emerged to support what everyone knows about Afrezza's effectiveness. 9. Peds study is well underway 10. Dr. K was hired 11. JDRF, diatribe and other major diabetes orgs have come out in support of Afrezza, no longer in doubt by them 12. One drop partnership 13. People on Afrezza have dropped the pump in favor of a cgm As for the company: 1. Debt has been significantly reduced 2. Company now has a sales force (effectiveness is up for debate to be candid) 3. Uthr deal with first milestone validating TS and the deal itself 4. UTHR has said Trep T will replace current Tyvaso 5. RLS is progressing 6. Second Uthr moecule on the horizon 7. Hundreds of patents good into the 2030's 8. State of the art production facility Am sure there is more but all more than enough to justify moving forward with either Afrezza and/or the company. I personally would like to wait on judgement about Afrezza until after approved and on the market for peds to see the reaction on sales 12 months out from that. The "great" Steve Balmer (I say great with my tounge firmly planted in my cheek) once said about the iPhone upon its introduction, "No one will ever want or buy one of those." And so we go with Afrezza, early adopters continue to use it while new adopters continue to on board.... GLTAL's!!! great summary! Recall Mike also mentioned in his last presentation a few days ago at the H.C. Wainwright Global Life Sciences Conference that preliminary data from the Philip Levin study on Afrezza ( clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03324776) will be presented in the coming ADA. Mike said it is pretty significant because it will try to standardize the titration for T2s. |
|
