How am I lying? It's just a thought? If it's in violation then I take it back then..
I gave you one very specific example your wild untruths. I repeat it here:
"Given they are using the patch for topical release only without any systemic involvement suggests that it doesn't work with systemic absorption and is a possible reason why the initial systemic oxycodone trials didn't work."
Now this does not read a mere expression of a thought. You state as a fact that “the initial systematic oxycodone trials didn’t work,” but this assertion is simply untrue.
1 February 2010: “Phosphagenics Limited today announced positive results from a Phase 1B clinical study using the Company’s patented TPM (Targeted Penetration Matrix} for the delivery of oxycodone. This successful trial showed that daily application of a TPM-oxycodone patch delivered therapeutic bloodstream levels of oxycodone in a reproducible, consistent and sustained manner.”
15 February 2012: “Australian drug delivery technology company Phosphagenics Limited today announced positive results from the clinical trial using its new TPM/oxycodone patch.”
…
Results have demonstrated that the new patch delivered 4.5 times more oxycodone over 72 hours into the blood compared to the origina prototype patch developed by Phos[hagenics more than a year ago.”
26 July 2013: “Australian drug delivery company Phosphagenics Limited has achieved an important milestone in its TPM/oxycodone patch development program, with its latest Phase 1 clinical trial confirming that the product is able to successfully deliver oxycodone over a 72 hour period. The delivery profile warrants progression to Phase 2 trials to investigate therapeutic pain relief.”
From the above links and extracts you can see that each and every clinical trial of the systemic TPM-oxycodone patch without exception met or exceeded trial targets.
The only "failure," if you can call it that, of the systemic oxycodone patch had nothing to do with the efficacy of transdermal systemic administration; it had only to do with the stability of the patch formulation over time. This was nevertheless clearly a setback that essentially forced the duplication in 2013 of results already established in 2012 with the previous generation patch.
So, we can see that your statement that the trial “didn’t work” is simply untrue. And since you repeated it after being corrected on the point – not just once and not only by me, I have to wonder about your intention.
Thank you for the link, I did read it. It still doesn't clearly say why the systemic oxycodone patch was not being pursued other than 'cannibalising each other in market' and that 'oxymorphone is more potent'. I don't think potency matters as much when oxycodone is used tenfold more in a systemic setting.
What is it that is not clear to you about the company’s desire not to compete against itself? I think the strategy is sensible; moreso, the strategy was very clearly explained in some detail.
Finally, although this doesn’t fall into the realm of falsehood, but does fall into the category of irrelevant nonsense, please consider your repeated references to the marketplace dominance of oral oxycodone over oral oxymorphone.
While true as far as it goes, this issue is doubly irrelevant, first because Phosphagenics is developing opioid patches precisely to avoid the drawbacks of oral administration, and second because it is pointless to note that oral oxycodone is prescribed and administered more often than is oxymorphone when oxymorphone well known to be not well taken up when administered orally.
But that is a distinction between these two opioids that evaporates when the compounds are administered transdermally.
Administered transdermally, systemic oxymorphone offers significant advantages over systemic oxycodone but either could provide a successful commercial outcome. It just doesn’t make sound commercial sense to try to commercialize both.
POH Price at posting:
2.8¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)