We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alizyme | LSE:AZM | London | Ordinary Share | GB0000374289 |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 4.08 | - | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
01/9/2009 13:19 | Thought you'd died..ah well. | romust | |
01/9/2009 13:09 | Can anyone please cite say two examples in the history of stock suspensions when shareholders ultimately received more than the suspension price? If you can prove me wrong then good, but I have simply never encountered it and am staggered by the dellusion even at this stage. Any idea of the potential legal liabilities? TIA. | silverbackalpha | |
31/8/2009 09:42 | Hi Dr B - agree fully - this was what I was trying to 'say' in my post below!! Dunderheed - 28 Aug'09 - 09:53 - 24181 of 24192 edit ....Also feel that when you are relying on subjective definitions of pain relief from patients - you'd better be very confident your product really does differentiate significantly from leading one available..... | dunderheed | |
31/8/2009 09:29 | Filbert, you have your trials confused. Colal pred was for colitis, not for IBS. The placebo effect is somewhat less for this condition than for IBS Demonstrating non-inferiority is actually not as easy from a statistical perspective as one might think (what the trial was actually testing - ie acute non-inferiority), and thus as a result its not a great surprise that the study failed. As an analyst at the time said, bearing in mind the known considerable placebo effect in IBS, the study actually failed to demonstrate any activity at all as it is not possible to tell if it was better than placebo | dr biotech | |
29/8/2009 00:11 | I am so glad I only invested £500 in this pile of Sh1te | billthebank | |
28/8/2009 21:01 | All said, that seems somewhat positive. I hope you see some return. I've not looked at the beans, but suspect it may be possible? (just) | the_doctor | |
28/8/2009 18:58 | With respect to Ceti, I hope they wait for the final PIII results in 2010, especially as the 30 million would become payable | capricious | |
28/8/2009 16:54 | Update on website. I bet our 'friend' AG is right up there at the front of the Q! | loafofbread | |
28/8/2009 10:32 | Yes I apologise that was my issue as well - acute versus long term - as you state - not possible in nthis study and as I state feel in the longer term the subjective view of the patient may well improve over time - ie longer term pain mgt etc. Also totally agree last paragraph! | dunderheed | |
28/8/2009 10:26 | The reason they were comparing to prednisolone in Europe and to placebo in US is that prednisolone is approved for use in IBS in Europe, but is not approved for use in IBS in the US. Thus, the comparators are appropriate. What was not appropriate in the EU was stopping treatment with Colal-pred before the chronic benefit of continued dosing could be demonstrated, such continued dosing not being possible with standard prednisolone - ie the study was not designed to test the key attribute of Colal-pred, a very significant failing in my view. Demonstrating non-inferiority is actually not as easy from a statistical perspective as one might think (what the trial was actually testing - ie acute non-inferiority), and thus as a result its not a great surprise that the study failed. As an analyst at the time said, bearing in mind the known considerable placebo effect in IBS, the study actually failed to demonstrate any activity at all as it is not possible to tell if it was better than placebo, it having been shown (probably) not to be quite as good as standard prednisolone for acute dosing. What I want to know is why we were told that all development costs are now down to the partners, and then get a demand for money from one of said partners which the Co couldn't meet? - in my view McCarthy considerably misled the market in this respect as according to him there weren't any costs of partners which would need to be covered by AZM and as a result the company's cash position, though low and assuming milestones came in, was fine. It appears that that in fact was a lie. | filbert3 | |
28/8/2009 09:39 | Oh thanks for confirmation re background - off now so BOL all - btw where is the news that was promised last week?! | dunderheed | |
28/8/2009 09:28 | vs placebo is often frowned up for ethical reasons Prometheus is conducting a Phase II dose-finding study We dont yet know what the US Phase III design will be 'you'd better be very confident your product really does differentiate significantly from leading one available' THATS WHY VS PRED WAS BETTER THAN VS PLACEBO LIKE I SAID Not a doctor, that's a nickname due to a science background Biochemistry, Biochemical Engineering, Big Pharma & Biotech | the_doctor | |
28/8/2009 08:53 | Yes I agree but I would have thought regulators would have supported more info than less? ie versus placebo - it does seem strange that the European regulators required more 'strict' guidelines than the Americans? Also feel that when you are relying on subjective definitions of pain relief from patients - you'd better be very confident your product really does differentiate significantly from leading one available. That's it - I dont see it as being productive taking this debate any further - as you also do not know what the regulators requested or any other intricate aspects of trial design! What is your prfessional background? I assume you are a part qualified doctor or equivalent from your avatar and as you also seem to know what you are talking about? | dunderheed | |
28/8/2009 08:40 | They were unlucky because Colal Pred should in theory have stood a very good chance of being shown to be equivalent to pred. Furthermore, while you comment this and that about the trial design, you dont know what regulators suggested or asked for. | the_doctor | |
28/8/2009 08:37 | Okay whatever we'll have to agree to disagree?! Either way have had quite some fun following your prm comments lately!! | dunderheed | |
28/8/2009 08:37 | they were IMO unlucky that it wasnt shown to be approximately equivalent in terms of efficacy. | the_doctor | |
27/8/2009 17:09 | So earlier you were saying they were unlucky or is it simply that it isn't superior then? | dunderheed | |
27/8/2009 16:48 | Dunderheed, if you knew a lot about clinical trial design, I'd say your point was worth making. To garner sales from pred, they really needed to show equivalent or better efficacy and improved safety. Going against placebo only wouldnt have really answered that question. It may have been that EU regulators said they wanted to see it pitched against pred. Trialling against pred and placebo still would have left it worse than pred in terms of efficacy. Lower dose pred gives better safety but lower efficacy... and would have been much cheaper than Colal pred. | the_doctor | |
27/8/2009 11:41 | So whats new whats passed is history now, what about the future and us the shareholders have'nt Deloitt [I think?] have any news or a statement to make giving some information to the shareholders at least letting us know whats going on. | gambill | |
27/8/2009 11:18 | t_d mm has hit my point they are running placebo in states - why not in Europe? This was clearly aiming too high. | dunderheed | |
27/8/2009 10:27 | made some money shorting mdx in its bioprogress days. | lfc4ever | |
26/8/2009 16:20 | mike I was basing that on your comment: "that it was missing a particular comparison leg (plecebo?, competitor's drug?)" Yes, vs placebo also would have been prudent. Often not done though. For it to have any real commercial impact, Colal probably needed to demonstrate equivalence/superior It wasnt a high risk trial. | the_doctor | |
26/8/2009 15:31 | the-doctor, clearly there was always going to be a comparator leg, that wasn't the issue. The issue was the trial design was for ONLY one comparison, and that was against conventional prednisolone. There was no comparator leg against plecebo. The only comparator leg failed to show equivalence/superior Clearly, on reflection, a really risky (all or nothing) trial, banking on equivalence/superior | mad mike |
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions