Working on the basis that if you do not ask, you may not learn, I am a little puzzled by ousia's comments on systemic uptake and tissue penetrability.
Tamiflu taken orally and being taken up via the digestive tract should provide systemic relief and Relenza, being inhaled should provide relief locally to the nasal and bronchial tracts and lungs. However its in the lungs where I would have thought the battle is going to be fought and won (or lost) at least in the majority of cases. But if I am wrong about that I would welcome being corrected.
I would have thought also that you may require more of Tamiflu than you would of Relenza, for the same response, because of mode of delivery. But as against that, the concern that asthma suffer's may be adversely affected by Relenza is potentially a problem and one which deserves some form of response from Glaxo and/or Biota.
But with tissue penetrability, here I am confused. I thought both componds acted directly on the virus, either by preventing a virus molecule from sub dividing or, as in the case of Tamiflu, preventing the virus from leaving a host cell after it had penetrated it.
And in both cases the requirement is to administer both drugs early in the onset of the illness before the quantum of virus present has reached such levels that it becomes impossible to effectively influence its progress.
Whilst the threat of a bird flue pandemic remains Biota should maintain a healthy price premium. Nevertheless it is disappointing that in the latest assessment of its potential, ie in the recent US purchase, it is still being rated as clearly second to Tamiflu. It is hard to argue against this but perhaps the second generation products being worked on may change that assessment.
BTA Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
