|
Post by compound26 on Jun 15, 2017 14:36:57 GMT -5
glucemapoc.com/glucemapoc.com/?page_id=1558SALIENT FEATURES OF GLUCEMA TEST Easy to use non-invasive test 2-5 minutes to read from a drop of saliva Test once every 7-14 days Provides quick estimate of recent average glucose levels to monitor treatment
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 15, 2017 10:05:23 GMT -5
The first is Glucema, a saliva test that measures your average glucose readings over the past 1-2 weeks. It's a little stick that collects a drop of saliva and provides an immediate result. It connects to a handheld reader device that records results and can transfer them to mobile devices, and an app that can track results and also the patient's insulin doses and other parameters, and provide "alerts for critical readings and adverse outcomes." TBD on exactly how the app works, but this non-invasive test -- with study results to back its accuracy -- looks pretty exciting!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My thinking is that if this is cheap and accurate enough, this could really be used to showcase the benefit of Afrezza while a PWD is still titrating Afrezza. With this, PWDs will see the benefits of Afrezza within one or two weeks. [Note that Damon Dash's A1C went from 10 to 7 in one month].
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 15, 2017 9:53:20 GMT -5
Non-Invasive Testing That Works www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/diabetes-tech-display-ada-77th-scientific-sessions#18One of the most exciting things we saw on the expo floor was a company called DiabetOmics out of Oregon, which is poised to soon launch a new non-invasive BG control test and two "point-of-care" diagnostic tools that could change diabetes treatment! The first is Glucema, a saliva test that measures your average glucose readings over the past 1-2 weeks. It's a little stick that collects a drop of saliva and provides an immediate result. It connects to a handheld reader device that records results and can transfer them to mobile devices, and an app that can track results and also the patient's insulin doses and other parameters, and provide "alerts for critical readings and adverse outcomes." TBD on exactly how the app works, but this non-invasive test -- with study results to back its accuracy -- looks pretty exciting! The other two tests, which are also administered right in the clinic or physician's practice with no need to go to a lab, are: Insudex, for early detection of type 1 diabetes and LADA (Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults) -- a USB-stick-sized device that takes a fingerstick blood sample and provides results with 2-5 minutes. Those results show a variety of autobody levels including GAD and C-peptide that indicate T1D. Imagine, all those sophisticated results with just one drop of blood right in your doctor's office! And finally Lumella - a similar test for detection of preeclampsia and gestational diabetes. Seriously, this could do away with the need for the traditional Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) that requires drinking disgusting liquid and hanging around in a lab for hours. The company boasts high accuracy: "90% of subjects with a positive Lumella test in the first trimester will test positive with the OGTT at 24-28 weeks gestation." All these are coming to market in early 2018, we're told.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 14, 2017 13:40:55 GMT -5
Can anyone confirm this? Aloha96707 Wednesday, 06/14/17 10:34:26 AM Re: Hypi post# 24134 Post # of 24138 I heard from friend that VDEX is writing about 300 scripts a month. With every new patient they attached a CGM for a week and monitor their BG Levels and their diet. They give them samples with strict instructions so that they can see how the patient reacts. After the first week they will adjust. It's a smart way to ease the patient on to Afrezza and for the patient to understand Afrezza. Some of the older posts from the same author: Aloha96707 Sunday, 06/04/17 12:22:20 PM Re: nobodysbusiness post# 23872 Post # 23886 Wait until the pulmonary lung test is not required. Rumor has it with the upcoming new label it will be REMOVED. Aloha96707 Sunday, 06/04/17 12:01:43 PM Re: DownWithPumpers post# 23828 Post # 23884 A buddy of mine made an Appt for next Friday at VDEX for an assessment. His ENDO would not prescribe Afrezza. She's in for a big surprise when he goes for his next 6 month checkup. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, assuming what he posted on June 4 was true, he has a friend who had an appointment with VDEX on June 9, 2017. And he may have learned something from talking with this friend?
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 13, 2017 14:17:47 GMT -5
Think the notice just has the wrong unit count for the 2nd titration pack. 60 cartridges of 4, 8 and 12 units is 1440 total units of insulin. I have sent a message to Mike (our CEO) informing him about this inaccurate reference. Mike said he will look into this.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 12, 2017 16:03:40 GMT -5
Based on Mike's comments, we can assume it was about 4-5 hundred. Assuming Sanofi had 400 reps detailing Afrezza, whereas Mannkind has approx. 85 reps detailing Afrezza (per compound26), then:- At it's new script peak (per Symphony) on 9/25/15, Sanofi's 400 reps sold 394 new scripts or roughly 1 new script per rep, per week. - At that rate per week, Mannkind's salesforce would need to sell 86 new scripts per week to equal Sanofi's best week. - Since Mannkind actually sold 121 new scripts the most recent week ending 6/2 (not it's high), it's 85 person sales force sold 1.4 scripts per week, a 40% greater rate than Sanofi's best. - If Mannkind had Sanofi's 400 reps, it would currently be selling 560 new scripts per week (400 Sanofi equivalent reps x 1.4 scripts per week). Bottom line - assuming the above rep numbers are close to being correct, then Mannkind is doing a significantly better job at selling Afrezza than Sanofi at it's peak. - This still doesn't justify the number of new scripts per, but it does show that Mannkind's marketing to date is having some positive effect, and that more reps and more advertising should generate even greater sales (duh!). Feel free to poke holes in any or all of this. Clearly the analysis rests on the assumed number of reps at each company and particularly those at Sanofi. If I recall correctly, in the fourth quarter CC, Mike basically said that Mannkind was basically using 1/10 sales people (vs Sanofi) to generate a 75% of the sale volume (in terms of units shipped, vs that of Sanofi) for the 4th quarter of 2016 (compared with 4th quarter of 2015).
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 8, 2017 17:09:01 GMT -5
Based on Mike's comments, we can assume it was about 4-5 hundred. What about Mannkind reps? The number 90 sticks in my head but I'm not sure. Anyone? That's about right. I believe 85 is the number that was mentioned on last CC. Someone mentioned 95 the other day.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 8, 2017 14:24:06 GMT -5
Does anyone know how many reps Sanofi had detailing Afrezza vs. the number of reps employed by Mannkind? If we knew it I don't recall. It would be interesting to see how many scripts have been generated per rep under Sanofi vs. under Mannkind, especially since it's likely, imo, that Mannkind had far fewer reps. Mike already alluded to cartridges per script trending higher. Based on Mike's comments, we can assume it was about 4-5 hundred.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 6, 2017 14:34:51 GMT -5
Mike looks much better in video than on other shared pictures (Very much like CEO type in this Video). My serious question to this board is whether or not a decision of changing CEO has already made before the ASM meeting. I would appreciate any comments about your impressions about Matt from anyone who talked to Matt in this meeting. The decision to replace Matt with Mike most likely have been made by the ASM. After watching the ASM video, I have the impression that Mike was behaving as the interim CEO at the ASM. As for the reason why Mannkind did not announce that at the ASM, here was my reasoning: However, on the other end, at the ASM, Matt did not speak a word. So probably the transition was already at least hinted or planned at that time. My guess is that, since Matt was included in the list of directors that was being voted by the shareholders at the ASM, it will be odd that while shareholders vote for his directorship, he is being replaced as CEO and therefore needs to be replaced as a director as well. So no announcement at the ASM. And then after the ASM is over for one or two weeks, Mannkind announces Matt's stepping down as CEO. mnkd.proboards.com/post/109131Also, it appears Matt was not bitter about the replacement based on Tinkerbell’s post below. I guess Matt is mandated to finish the three priorities by the end of July. I would guess the distribution agreement for Brazil counts as one. Not sure if the agreement with Locust Walk counts as one. 5) Matt is fully aware of the cash runway BUT he has three priorities he is focused on in the near term. Raising cash is not one of them at least not yesterday. You can surmise what that could mean. I suspect that if the three priorities he's currently working on come to fruition, obtaining cash won't be an issue which I've said on this board too. And to be clear, their cash runway in not dry as of yesterday's meeting. IT isn't. The DTC campaign will launch in July as it should. By then, endocrinologists will know full well that Afrezza is here to stay. Period. End of Quote. Let the disruption begin. mnkd.proboards.com/post/107516Based on the above (that Matt does not seem to be bitter and that Mannkind did not announce the replacement at the ASM even though the decision probably had already been made), I have the impression that the replacement was peaceful and with Matt probably supported the replacement.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 2, 2017 15:55:26 GMT -5
Lol, note that in after hours trading at 16:24:47, a trade of 8 shares (i.e., with a total dollar value of $12) drive down the PPS by 5 cents from 1.55 to 1.50. While at the same time, the other 10,000 plus shares traded with the PPS without any change. Come on.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 1, 2017 12:59:01 GMT -5
I've been wondering about this July date since they gave it to Haken. Agreed. So Haken gets an extra year and seven months pay whereas Matt gets an extra two month's pay? Hard to argue that Haken did a better job than Matt. Maybe Al was just personally protecting Haken? Maybe the board just decided to coincide the ending of payments to both at the same time? I'd like to think there's something to this July termination coincidence. July's not far off so we'll know soon if there's more to this. I recall there were lots of discussions regarding certain CTO with respect to the sanofi partnership agreement that will expire July 2017 and that Haken's termination was to match that date. Not sure whether such theory has any merit in it.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on May 30, 2017 16:30:34 GMT -5
I step away for two days. sheesh. Odd to me if this was pre-planned that they didn't announce it with the ASM and have the transition happen there. IMO, either it wasn't nice, or, there is something in the works. However, on the other end, at the ASM, Matt did not speak a word. So probably the transition was already at least hinted or planned at that time. My guess is that, since Matt was included in the list of directors that was being voted by the shareholders at the ASM, it will be odd that while shareholders vote for his directorship, he is being replaced as CEO and therefore needs to be replaced as a director as well. So no announcement at the ASM. And then after the ASM is over for one or two weeks, Mannkind announces Matt's stepping down as CEO.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on May 30, 2017 13:01:08 GMT -5
Matt, you and said that management, should they decide that ch 11 is the only option needs to file at a point in time where there is enough cash left to take the company through the process. In your opinion, how much cash would MNKD need to complete a ch 11? I cannot access Mannkinds website now but if they are still burning $10 mm / mo and they have enough cash to get the to Q1 '17 (per Matt P), my guess is that today, they have around $30 - $33 mm. Trying to get a handle on how much cash they have to run company and drop dead date they would need to file by. Per your earlier comments, you indicated that if the filing is inevitable, they would likely do so in conjunction with the next PR for the Q. Thanks, I have more than a bit of experience in bankruptcy cases, as a buyer of distressed assets for a former employer, as a consultant and expert witness for a distressed company that filed bankruptcy, and as a consultant and expert witness for a group of shareholders. Each case and the surrounding circumstances are unique but if I had to put a number to it I would guess that MNKD needs $50-60 million to make it through a reorganization. Let me break that down.
First, there is the expense of the attorneys. This will be a complicated case with lots of parties and there will be a lot of legal work. Bankruptcy attorneys are used to dealing with clients that are insolvent and will demand their estimated fees up front I the form of a retainer. While the fees are ultimately something that is approved on motion to the court, it gets paid out of that retainer. If assets are to be sold, there will be an asset liquidation firm appointed to write an offering memorandum for the saleable assets and that firm will be due a sale commission if successful. The company needs to file a detailed plan of reorganization with the court and there is typically a work-out firm that specializes in preparing those plan documents. If there is litigation between the bankruptcy estate and other parties, that creates another layer of legal fees. The Office of the US Trustee charges fees to administer the case. There are other costs of bankruptcy as well that I won't go into, but the debtor pays for most of it. The various retainers and expert fees will easily be in the ballpark of $10 million. Easily.
If the company is to reorganize life must go on during the pendency of the case. Afrezza has to be manufactured, salesmen have to call on physicians, financial reports have to be filed (although not with the SEC), and the office manager has to pay for lighting and air conditioning. We know the company is burning something like $8-10 million a month over and above what Afrezza sales bring in so over the course of a typical bankruptcy (120-180 days) the company will need to fund that operating burn. Additionally, all the accounts payable get frozen the instant the company files in court, which is good because creditors can't bring collection suits while the company is protected by the court, but at the same time a lot of vendors will put the company on cash terms. Prepaid deposits will have to be provided to all the utility companies to keep the lights, Internet, and telephones on. Any fudging that might have been possible by extended credit terms will be gone and MNKD will effectively turns into an all cash business. Quite literally you will have truck drivers demanding a check before they will unload supplies needed to continue operating.
So a monthly cash burn of $8-10 for 4-6 months plus the cost of the experts gets you to my estimated need for cash. On the supply side, the remaining Mann Group loan facility is $30.1 and the remaining ATM is restricted by the number of shares to a value of around $7 million at today's share price, so that is a total of $37 million of financing plus whatever is left on the balance sheet. As of June there was $63.7 million on the balance sheet and if we assume $8 monthly burn (it averaged $7 million in the first half of the year before the marketing effort) the balance sheet will be down to about $32 million by the end of October. If you use the $10 million monthly burn the cash remaining at the end of October is $24 million. For sake of argument lets use the midpoint of $28 million. Add the $28 million in cash remaining to the $37 in financing capacity and it comes to $66 million.
Without access to the books I can't be more precise that this, but it seems likely that at some point in November the cash required to operate the business as it goes through a bankruptcy reorganization will dip below the remaining cash assuming all the available sources of financing are tapped. There are potential surprises, both good and bad, that could change the math (like an RLS payment) but those are impossible to estimate.
Many companies can access debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing to access additional cash in bankruptcy, but DIP lines have to be secured by assets. Since Sanofi has a first priority security interest in the Valencia headquarters, and Deerfield Partners has a first priority security interest in Danbury, obtaining DIP finance is going to be extremely difficult. Getting around those security agreements will be almost impossible so I think the roughly $66 million MNKD can access is also close to 100% of what they can potentially access. More than anything else, I think that explains why the stock is trading where it is trading. Matt is running out of options and the market knows it. We now know that, clearly, as of Oct 17, 2016, Matt WAS NOT not running out of options and the market DID NOT know it.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on May 25, 2017 13:02:23 GMT -5
Is that 63.00 for 53 pages? It's a great thing to see this on Amazon but geez we could have wrote this book.. Note that the price is not quoted in dollars. So it is not $63. Whatever currency it is, I guess it is way less than $63.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on May 24, 2017 16:21:11 GMT -5
We need more patients, not patents. Mannkind proposes to exchange each patent for one patient. However, they were told that they should be more patient and patients will come.
|
|