It’s not clear to me why you think that your two comments are “fair”.
This was a proof of concept study and so the criticism of it as having “only” three patients is unwarranted. For the first time, transplantation of human islets was undertaken subcutaneously. Not the liver but under the skin. And it worked.
So, as to the second comment, on what basis are the results “not particularly overwhelming”? What criteria are you using?
We know what Coates’s criteria are:
”For the first time we report both 3-year survival and function of human pancreatic islets transplanted within the NovoSorb BTM site outside the liver.”
And, “This week we passed the third anniversary of the first human implant and remarkably the T1D patient’s sugar level has remained within a normal range”.
My own observation is that the apparent use of fewer islets than is recommended for the usual transplantation to the liver makes the results even more remarkable.
The literature indicates >10,000 IEQ (islet cell equivalents) per kilogram of body weight. The amounts shown in the table would indicate that perhaps less than half this rate was used in the study. If so, then that would make subcutaneous islet transplantation even more attractive in addition to the other benefits canvassed in the announcement.
PNV Price at posting:
$1.67 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)