Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : TTPH, Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gcrispin who wrote (32)	9/11/2016 1:05:15 AM
From: HardToFind	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 80

The bioavailability of the oral version of eravacycline was questioned before the phase 3 trial in cIAI. Thus they did the cIAI study w/o an oral side to it, whereas they did an IV transition to oral segment for cUTI. Is that what you're talking about, or not? Was there known information I missed in the past that brought into greater question the likelihood of success with the oral with cUTI? I'm not a knowledgeable drug guy, but I'm guessing different drugs have different propensities to be effective for different uses, depending on how easily they pass into the blood stream vs stay in the gut, how quickly they get filtered out by the kidneys and how they metabolize. So for the following uses: infections in the blood stream intra-abdominal infections urinary tract infections each class of infection might commonly respond better to drugs with different characteristics. True? Anybody? And it seems like they are still a bit unsure with regard to oral cUTI (unwilling to take a similar risk again), as they are doing two Phase III trial studies (IV cIAI and IV cUTI) that would in theory be unnecessary if they had total confidence that a repeat of the last cUTI Phase III would be successful this time if care was taken to ensure that the oral drug was administered on an empty stomach. Do you consider it a knock on management that they went ahead with a phase III cUTI oral segment without better confidence of oral drug efficacy success, or was it OK for them to swing for the fence, as an effective IV & oral drug is seemingly worth a lot more money? (Obviously, in retrospect, it didn't work out well for shareholders. But was it a well-considered gamble in your opinion?)