Latest Forum Topics / Biosensors |
![]() |
Is Biosensors a good buy?
|
|||
bengster68
Master |
12-Jun-2008 21:49
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
How about planning another "business trip" to Germany at Oktober for some beer and sausages??? I heard Biomatrix is capturing market share very quickly in Germany under a very strong distributor there. Prof Grube is based in Germany and he is a strong promoter of Biomatrix there (actually the clinical results are the best natural promoter but it doesn't harm to have a well respected Cardiologist endorsing your product right?). Biomatrix is scoring many goals in Germany man!!! | ||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
jackjames
Elite |
12-Jun-2008 19:55
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
haha.. been very quiet lately... of course in the volatile market, it can go up or down, but it will go back to 80 cents so easily.. will see... anyway, I am quite happy with its performance so far. oh yeah, yesterday I just loaded up fiberchem, heeee....... dividend play is 2.2%, lock in dividend first... then, for long term, so, the price is close to biosensor, they can compete each other, ha ha.. hey, bengster, u back from holiday? ha ha. good for u.... guess I will be missing in action next week, going for business trip next week... Germany, again, boring place~ |
||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
|||
bengster68
Master |
12-Jun-2008 16:43
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Just came back from holiday today. Jackjames, at 69cts, the only way could be up??? | ||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
allright
Senior |
12-Jun-2008 16:25
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Whew welcome back almostthere. Yes the postings were very quiet these few days...was wondering why.....Hope you bring back the life to this share | ||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
almostthere
Member |
12-Jun-2008 11:56
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Hello All, Just got back and find this thread very quiet since June 08. How is everybody? Know the market is shit and still stuck with our friend Bio. | ||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
|||
AK_Francis
Supreme |
08-Jun-2008 00:51
![]() Yells: "Happy go lucky, cheers." |
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
basically, just wacth CO trend, don't rush for it, a very bad week next. ak guess it will drop below 3000 again, really very pessimistic with CO kena speculated like that???? n we always see DJ face. if u really need cash for turn around, then u hv to seriouly consider your vesting leow. don't think that you will make good money within the next 1 mth. of course, u may reconsider if CO turn otherwise. |
||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
strike1147
Member |
07-Jun-2008 11:12
|
||
x 0
x 1 Alert Admin |
MONDAY WILL RETREAT BACK BELOW 69 OR WORST | ||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
investor
Senior |
07-Jun-2008 11:08
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
To provide further clarity on the 'Wright' patent, vs the patent that Biosenors has. THe Wright patent includes Rapamycin and its analog on a speficic range of polymers. The Biosensors patent includes Rapamycin (sirolimus), Everolimus, Biolimus, on a range of polymers, including Biosensors' proprietary PLA polymer, and THESE POLYMERS ARE NOT OF THE SAME TYPE as the 'Wright' patent. Further to that, the drugs Everolimus, Biolimus were not invented prior to the 'Wright' patent. So, from the 'layman' perspective, there does not seem to be any infringement of the 'Wright' patent. Again, this is a personal view, and we may not be familar with the complexities of the legal issues to be an authority on the subject. Comments are welcome. Not a call to buy/sell |
||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
|||
bengster68
Master |
07-Jun-2008 02:43
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
ABT's ABSORB DES uses PLA biodegradable polymer. Old article but quite good: Drug-eluting stents (DES) dramatically reduce restenosis rates after percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the permanent metallic implants may impair coronary imaging with MRI or CT, can hinder surgical revascularization, prevent positive remodeling, and predispose the vessel to late stent thrombosis.
Recent reports also have indicated that there may be an increased risk of late stent thrombosis with DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS). In a meta-analysis of 14 clinical trials that randomized 6,675 patients to paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents versus BMS, there was a significant increase in the incidence of very late thrombosis (>1 year following the index procedure) associated with DES use compared to BMS placement.1 Stents are in development to address these problems; some stents contain newer drug-eluting agents while others feature new designs and new stent material. At the ACC 2007 i2 Summit, Serruys and colleagues reported a first-in-man study assessing the safety and overall performance of a bioabsorbable stent that, if effective, could eliminate several of the problems associated with metallic stents. The ABSORB trial evaluated the Bioabsorbable Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System, placed in a single de novo coronary artery lesion. Researchers evaluated device efficacy, procedural success in terms of ease of deployment and safety, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and stent thrombosis at 30 and 180 days. At 30 days in the ABSORB trial, device and procedural success was very high – 93.5% device success and 100% procedural success – and no patients experienced MACE or stent thrombosis. At 6 months, rates of MACE continued to be low (3.3%, one patient with non-Q wave MI at 46 days postprocedure) and still no stent thrombosis. Ninety-day results, presented May 22, 2007 at EuroPCR, showed no additional MACE nor stent thrombosis. Bioabsorbable Stents The bioabsorbable stent is composed of a poly-L-lactic acid backbone, coated with a bioabsorbable polymer containing the antiproliferative drug everolimus (Slide 1). Polylactic acid is a proven biocompatible material commonly used in medical implants such as dissolvable sutures. The stent is designed to be slowly metabolized by the body and completely absorbed over time. According to principal investigator Dr. Patrick Serruys, the scaffolding effect of any stent is needed for only 3-6 months to prevent constrictive vascular remodeling postdilatation. But the traditional metal cage, which is how he describes metal stents, remains long after this period. The newer coating may minimize chronic inflammation seen with current agents and may reduce the need for long-term dual antiplatelet therapy. Also, the bioabsorptive properties of the new stent may allow late expansive luminal and vessel remodeling that is not hindered as it is now with metal stents. However, because the stent is made from polymer, it might have more acute recoil than metallic stents in vivo. ABSORB patients will continue to be followed for longer-term safety and efficacy results. Plus, the next group of patients to be studied will receive an updated version of the stent system designed to deliver additional support to the arterial wall, potentially reducing late lumen loss even further. In June 2007, results were published in Lancet from the PROGRESS-AMS study assessing the efficacy and safety of an absorbable magnesium alloy stent.2 Histology and spectroscopy in animal studies had shown that magnesium disappears within 2 months and is replaced by calcium, accompanied by a phosphorous compound. It was hypothesized that a metallic biodegradable stent would reduce immediate recoil due to greater intrinsic strength compared to a polymer stent like that used in the ABSORB trial. Investigators enrolled 63 patients who received a total of 71 stents, 10-15 mm in length and 3.0-3.5 mm in diameter. While initial success was good (diameter stenosis reduced from 61.5% to 12.6% and an acute gain of 1.41 mm), in-stent late loss was 1.08 mm. The ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate in PROGRESS-AMS was 23.8% after 4 months and the overall TLR rate was 45% after 1 year. Neointimal growth and negative remodeling were the main operating mechanisms of restenosis. In this interview, Dr. Serruys discusses why a fully bioabsorbable DES might be preferable to “a full metal jacket” stent and reviews the angiographic and IVUS results of the ABSORB study that were presented at ACC ’07. Dr. Conti: I’m Richard Conti with Patrick Serruys, professor of medicine and interventional cardiology at Erasmus University in the Thorax Center in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. We’re going to talk about the ABSORB trial: Six-Month Angiographic and IVUS Results from a First-in-Man Evaluation of a Fully Bioabsorbable Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent. Patrick, why bioabsorbable stents? What’s the rationale? Dr. Serruys: We should think back to the early days of the metallic stent in 1986. Cardiologists may not think about it today, but when I first started to push a piece of metal into the coronary artery, I had a strange feeling of guilt. It is against nature. Stents work; they are good scaffolding devices. But, it’s clear that the scaffolding is only necessary for a short period of time, probably 4 to 6 months. Once the healing process has taken place, ideally this piece of metal should disappear. It has been a long dream of mine to have a scaffolding device that disappears after having performed its function. Dr. Conti: Why should we want the stent to disappear? Dr. Serruys: There are a number of reasons (Slide 2). We don’t want to have this metallic cage in the coronary artery. It has a critical transient function, but over the long term the metallic cage prohibits expansive luminal and vessel remodeling. Later, if a surgeon wants to do a bypass he has to cut through the metal. Also, if vasomotion is important in the cold weather and during exercise, there is no vasomotion at the stent site. So, there is plenty of reason why a stent should be something transient and not a permanent fixture in the coronary arteries. Dr. Conti: Tell us about the bioabsorbable stent. Dr. Serruys: The stent is made of a polymer of polylactic acid, which has been used in medicine for the last 40 years. It’s very simple: the molecules of lactic acid break down over time into CO2 and water and that’s it. As long as the absorption occurs very slowly over a period of months, you can fool Mother Nature; you will not have all the cellular reaction against a foreign body that would naturally occur. It took us almost 20 years to get a bioabsorbable stent, but we seem to finally be there. Dr. Conti: What are the data demonstrating that the bioabsorbable stent is bioabsorbed in 6 months? Dr. Serruys: Very good question. All the data we had originally, of course, were in healthy animals, and the variables that affected absorption included age, whether it was an atherosclerotic vessel, plus other biological variables including the presence of other enzymes. We now have data on 30 patients, including angiographic and IVUS data; that’s what we are reporting at this meeting. We also will be doing optical coherence tomography to look at the struts with multislice CT scan palpography – virtual histology – using backscattering of the radiofrequency, but that will take place at 18 months to 2 years or even later. Dr. Conti: What have you found at 6 months? Dr. Serruys: All the patients are doing well and there has been no subacute occlusion. I started my career reporting a 20% subacute occlusion rate in a New England Journal of Medicine article in ’91.3 We certainly have made progress over the years in terms of reducing the risk of subacute occlusion. In these first 30 patients, the angiographic results are promising (Slide 3). Nobody has required reintervention of the stented segment. What we have observed with angiography when looking at a bare-metal stent is evidence of late loss; typically, a late loss of about 0.8 mm. With the drug-eluting Cypher stent late loss is usually around 0.1 to 0.2 mm; with the Taxus stent it’s between 0.3 and 0.4 mm. To our surprise, we saw a late loss of 0.44 mm with our bioabsorbable stent, which is in-between the bare-metal stents and a good drug-eluting stent. We were very pleased. Dr. Conti: Those were your angiographic results; what about IVUS results? Dr. Serruys: The IVUS gives us all the cross-sections of the vessels, the external elastic membrane, the stent itself, and what is growing inside the stent. As for the neointimal hyperplasia inside the stent, it has been very small: 0.3 mm2 , which is even less than a good drug-eluting stent. The critical observation is that by watching the ring of the struts we show a reduction of the stent area. You can call that late shrinking or late recoil at the beginning of the bioactive remodeling. It amounted to an 11.6% reduction of the stent area, for a late-loss of 0.44 mm. This is not due to neointimal hyperplasia; it’s mainly the late-recoil of 11.6% of the struts itself. Dr. Conti: What about the lesions? Can you describe the lesions you were stenting? Dr. Serruys: The research is still in its infancy, so we were limited to treating very short lesions. The stent is 12 mm long, so we had to find lesions of 8.5 mm to cover it properly. And these lesions were in 30 patients at six institutions. We were very proud that in Rotterdam we found 16 of these patients. Dr. Conti: Is it easy to deploy or is it difficult? Dr. Serruys: No special challenge at all. What is amazing is the acute recoil, which is being published in CCI: it was 0.20 mm.4 Acute percent recoil was 6.4% with the bioabsorbable stent compared to 4.2% with an everolimus-eluting metal stent. So, we were very happy about the way they have processed this polymer to achieve almost the radial force and the scaffolding properties of the metal stent. This is a great achievement. Dr. Conti: And this is a first-generation stent you have; so, there is a lot of promise of even greater things to come. Dr. Serruys: A second version of this stent is ready for study. This iteration is much stronger in terms of radial force and scaffolding properties, so it may further reduce late recoil of the stent. Dr. Conti: This is fascinating. Everybody is talking about the risk of late stent thrombosis with drug-eluting stents. What do we know about endothelialization following implantation of these bioabsorbable stents? Is there any evidence for thrombosis in any of these patients? Dr. Serruys: No evidence of thrombosis. I can tell you Renu Virmani likes it. (Editor’s note: Dr. Virmani was one of the first to express concerns about the risk of late thrombosis with drug-eluting stents.5,6) We don’t expect any problem, because the stent slowly dissolves into CO2 and water. Certainly, the body is used to seeing some lactic acid, so Dr. Virmani liked the concept, but we have to prove this with clinical trials and show that you will not run into trouble early or late. That’s the whole beauty as well as the great responsibility of these kinds of trials where you test something in uncharted fields. Dr. Conti: Are you yourself going to continue working in this area? Dr. Serruys: Oh, yeah. My wife said the world has entered a new cycle where a lot of products are biodegradable. Now, we’re entering an era of biodegradable stents. Dr. Conti: We look forward to hearing more in the future. I think this is wonderful news. If we go back to 2003 when Renu Virmani said, “I think it’s time to think about biodegradable materials,” we’re here. Dr. Serruys: You have to listen to this lady. That’s for sure. Dr. Conti: Patrick, I want to thank you very much for coming to ACCEL. Dr. Serruys: Thank you very much. |
||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
cwwan1
Member |
07-Jun-2008 00:15
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
thanks mr investor for the summary and pension for digging up all this patents issue. I try to go through the past news release on the patent received by Bio and pension mail and i must say this forum is very informative. Continue the good contribution. | ||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
investor
Senior |
06-Jun-2008 23:30
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Going by the logic, that Biolimus and Everolimus were both not discovered before the 'Wright' patent, then their statement of 'Rapamycin and analog' theoretically should not be applicable to the 2 drugs. Having said that, we are all 'layman' trying to interpret these technical jargon, and we may not be able to fully grasp the essence of all the legalities. What we can see from the 'layman' perspective is that Biosensors has this patent of 'limus drug, including Sirolimus, Biolimus, Everolimus' on bio-degradable polymer PLA, and some other specific range of polymers, and this seems good enough for the moment. Not a call to buy/sell. |
||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
PensionAlterEgo
Member |
06-Jun-2008 22:45
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Okay, to be precise.. the Wright patent has the following claims as well.. 8. A stent having a coating containing rapamycin, said coating formed from a polymer mixed carrier containing the rapamycin or its analogs; and said coating applied to said stent; wherein the polymer is biocompatible and degradable; and wherein the polymer is chosen from: lactone-based polyesters, lactone-based copolyesters; polyanhydrides; polyaminoacids; polysaccharides; polyphosphazenes; poly(ether-ester) copolymers, and blends of such polymers. It appears from claim 8 that BIG is not the first to claim the use of limus (especially rapamycin) on a degadable polymer. However, what is clear from claim 8 is that Wright has not generalized the degradable polymer. But Wright has named the polymers to be used in conjuntion with the rapamycin drug. And it appears that the polymers are not the same as what BIG has claimed. Claims 9&10 cover different set of polymers. I have no idea of what Abbott is using as its polymer...but JNJ could be using the earlier broader claims (claims 1 and 5) to sue Abbott. Or probably one of the polymers used by Abbott is covered in claims 8, 9 or 10. Studying BIG's claims carefully, they seem to cover a different set of polymers (group consisting of polymethylmethacrylate, ethylene vinyl alcohol, and poly-dl-lactide polymer). Actually, BIG's patent has the reference to Wright's patent in its patent application. So the patent office is aware of this prior art and I strongly belief that BIG's patent is sure valid...because Patent office would have scrutinized this carefully. So rest assured BIG is in a good position. BIG's patent, however, does not cover all sorts of biodegradable polymers... but just those they have mentioned. As I mentioned before, I am not sure if BIG's claims such as poly-lactide derivatives include the glycolic ones like PLGA, PGLA. If it does not, then Abbott is free to use its PGLA and does not infringe on BIG's patent. But who cares... as long as BIG has got the winning formula in its PLA biodegadable polymer. Everolimus is actually Certican, which is marketed by Novartis. In my earlier posting related to the rapamycin lawsuit that Novartis won, the drug in question was Certican or Everolimus. Everolimus was actually filed in Sept 2001. Wright's initial filing was in 1998. So Everolimus was not discovered back then... I am also very excited about BIG's Biomatrix Freedom patent. If it claims to do what it does ... it can really be a block buster. The stent industry feels that fully biodegadable polymer is 10 years away. Meanwhile BIG could rule with its Biomatrix freedom ...
|
||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
|
|||
cashiertan
Elite |
06-Jun-2008 18:53
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
well as mentioned before buy if break 69 and sell if brk 68. it seem those who are more saring could make some kachand puteh or kopi money from bios in 2 days. Those who want more safe bet is to buy when it close abv 75c. some fools still Q'ing to buy at below 66c | ||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
investor
Senior |
06-Jun-2008 18:44
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Biosensors has a patent on Biolimus (created by them), as well as a patent on using 'limus drug' on bio-degradable polymer, specifically, Biolimus, Everolimus, Sirolimus, and on a range of bio-degradable polymers, specifically PLA, as well as some others. J & J is suing Abbot, which is using Everolimus, on a permanent polymer. There are 2 questions on my mind. IF Abbot were to use the bio-degradable polymer, would they have been sued under this 'Wright' patent. Also, was the Everolimus drug in existence before the 'Wright' patent was given to J & J ? ALso, why did the patent office in US give Biosensors their patent on 'limus drug on bio-degradable polymer' if there is a 'conflict' with the Wright patent ?. Can we interpret that the 'Wight' patent only pertains to permanent polymers ? |
||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
PensionAlterEgo
Member |
06-Jun-2008 17:09
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
No, JNJ's patent does not cover Biolimus. Biolimus was filed in 2003...while the Wright patent was filed in 1998. The Wright's family of patents has European filing but does not appear to have PCT filings. So China is not covered and that probably explains why MicroPort and JWMS have been fine using it there.
|
||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
bengster68
Master |
06-Jun-2008 13:49
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
There will be 2 critical timing for JNJ to buy over BIG. The first is LEADERS results which will be out in Oct2008. The second is their NEVO DES clinical results which JNJ internally will know the estimated data/result somewhere by H2 of 2009. The period in between these 2 dates will be a very tensed duration for JNJ. After LEADERS results (and esp if Biomatrix's FDA IDE is approved), BIG cannot wait too long for a takeover offer and need to move on as an independent DES player to make plans for the USA market. Im refering to the Biomatrix USA territory licensing. If there is an attractive USA licensing offer (with say St Judes Medical) by end 2008 or early 2009, BIG has to move on liao and cannot wait for JNJ/MDT, etc. I think JNJ is aware of the situation also and if JNJ choose to delay making an offer until NEVO DES results are ready, they risk the chance of BIG signing off the USA licensing deal and there is very little takeover value left in BIG. If by H2 of 2009 JNJ's DEVO DES is proven to be a failure at clinical trials again (plus BIG signed off their Biomatrix USA licensing territorial agreement with another DES player), JNJ will be in very very deep sh.it and there is seriously no more future or hope left for Cordis. NEVO DES clinical trial failure plus last option of taking over BIG also gone equals to ZERO hope left for Cordis and can prepare to close shop and get out of the stent industry. Lets see how long more JNJ will dare to play their poker game bluff. If they go all out and eventually got lousy cards on their hands, they will eventually be the biggest sufferer. BIG can still be a respectable global DES player even if remain independent. I think JNJ will be in cold sweat from Nov 2008 to mid-2009.
|
||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
bengster68
Master |
06-Jun-2008 11:20
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Thank you Bro PAE for your very in-depth patent analysis. Looks like there are a lot of minefields out there and we better pray pray BIG "Soon Soon Boh Tai Chi". This JNJ got too much money to burn for legal cases and clinical trials. NarBei trying to threaten BIG to sell them cheap is it? I heard the ex-owner of Conor is a Jew guy and he previously sold off another of his kelong farce company years ago. Now JNJ kena from this Jew guy again. Also, the market for DES now should be over US$5B a year. I think the ang moh guys are living in their own developed world and didn't include 3rd world markets like some parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. In many Asia countries, the DES vs BMS usage rate is around 90%!!! DES compounding growth worldwide at 1% per year up to 2012 is a joke man. Maybe they try to divert the attention away from their loss of market share and make the investors think DES not doing well globally anyway? DES sales slowed down because of safety problems linked with the first generation DES like Taxus and Cypher and the media is overplaying the blood clot safety issue which happens 0.5% a year for the first generation DESs. DES is by history, the most successful medical device ever invented with deep market penetration over such a short period of time. |
||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
AK_Francis
Supreme |
06-Jun-2008 11:11
![]() Yells: "Happy go lucky, cheers." |
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
no diff on small timer as the up turn may not be great in mths to come. big timer can, as they can use the fund to sw counters. AK small timer, hv some, still in red, run no road. | ||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
investor
Senior |
06-Jun-2008 11:00
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
It would be interesting indeed to see if the J & J patents covers Biolimus, IF AT THAT POINT of time when they were issued the patent (when ?), Biolimus was not invented yet. ALso, is the wright family of patents issued only in the US - Does it cover Europe ? or for that matter China ? Microport and JWMS in China have been using the Sirolimus drug for years in China and they have not been subjected to any lawsuit. |
||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||
ironside
Member |
06-Jun-2008 09:32
|
||
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Thank you all for sharing the BIG information. It is very apparent that thereare a lot of 'minefields' in front of BIG's path to success. BIG's profit will only shows up around Sept.08 (if any), hence, my opinion is that small timers should take profit during the next up trend. | ||
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me |