boston 2010 bio convention

Whilst reading a post about another biotech company there was a reference to this years Boston Bio Convention which reminded me that EMS presented at Boston in 2010. EMS release No 468 to the ASX on 15th Sept 2010 is well worth another read. It helps us to remind ourselves of why we invested in EMS in the first place with the hope of a large reward and why we still hang in (or at least I do)

There were 2 papers presented and note some of the findings as follows. However I suggest that you access the full report to avoid any accussation of cherry picking (which I probably have!)

Paper 1 Pharmacokinetics of ArtemetherSublingual Spray

DISCUSSION
+Easy to administer and does not need significant degree of clinical skill
+No additional medical equipment is required. (I assume this means other than the spray itself)
+No clinical supervision is required for the duration of the dosing.

CONCLUSION
+ArTiMist is rapidly absorbed shortly after dosing.
+86.7% of patients had negative parasite counts by the 2nd day of the treatment.
+With the ease of administration and absorption effective concentrations may be achieved earlier than with IV administration of medicine.

Paper 2 Sublingual Artemether in Severe Childhood Malaria

DISCUSSION
+In the small study comparing ArTiMist with intravenous quinine there is no clinical or statistical significany difference between the 2 treatments.
+Both treatments were safe and well tolerated,
+ArtiMist is easy to administer and does not require any significant degree of surgical skill.
+No additional medical equipment is required for administration and no preparation nor clinical supervision is required for the duration of the dosing.
+Sublingual administration of artemetherhas the potential to reduce deaths from severe malaria by reducing the delay in the administrationof effecyive antimalarial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS
+ArTiMist has a good tolerability in children
+93.3% of patients met the primary endpoint criteria (reduction in parasite count of >90% of baseline at 24 hours after the first dose)compared to 66.6% of patients treated with IV quinine.
+For all other primary and secondary efficacy parameters, there was no statistically or clinically significant difference in the way patients respnded to ArTiMist or quinine.
+Both tolerated were safe and well tolerated.

The bottom line is that it is dead easy to deliver and the results are better than the adopted treatment of IV quinine.
The sooner we conclude the trials the better.Time at the moment restricts mention trials for now but I will comment later today. Sorry to tease but its on the positive side of not bad.

kippax