EyePoint Pharmaceuticals (vorher: PSIVIDA) startet durch !! (Seite 191)
eröffnet am 29.01.04 09:28:54 von
neuester Beitrag 23.12.23 12:39:57 von
neuester Beitrag 23.12.23 12:39:57 von
Beiträge: 12.859
ID: 814.884
ID: 814.884
Aufrufe heute: 5
Gesamt: 1.588.558
Gesamt: 1.588.558
Aktive User: 0
ISIN: AU000000PVA7 · WKN: A0Q4DA
1,8250
EUR
-2,93 %
-0,0550 EUR
Letzter Kurs 03.05.18 Tradegate
Neuigkeiten
Werte aus der Branche Pharmaindustrie
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 5,0000 | +99.999,00 | |
| 2,0600 | +24,85 | |
| 451,20 | +20,00 | |
| 8,7400 | +19,73 | |
| 3,1900 | +16,42 |
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 4,0400 | -10,02 | |
| 3,5200 | -12,87 | |
| 4,8500 | -14,31 | |
| 0,6460 | -19,25 | |
| 0,5801 | -19,43 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
Also wenn das so weiter geht, .........?????????????????????
Wo ist der Webetrommel von Alimera? Wo bleiben die Anal_ysten und die analhystenbriefempfehlungen? Und die Fantasie?
Bei biotechwerte sehr oft ist die Fantasie und die Spekultitis mehr Wert als die Substanz selbst, ist aber so: der Kurs wird um mehr als 1000% nach oben getrieben, alle wollen einsteigen, Adrenalin pur, kaufen, kaufen, kaufen , ja was noch? Das machh spass!
Ich kann´s nicht mehr warten, heute bei gute werbetrommel hätten wir schon die 25€ Kurs!
Wo ist der Webetrommel von Alimera? Wo bleiben die Anal_ysten und die analhystenbriefempfehlungen? Und die Fantasie?
Bei biotechwerte sehr oft ist die Fantasie und die Spekultitis mehr Wert als die Substanz selbst, ist aber so: der Kurs wird um mehr als 1000% nach oben getrieben, alle wollen einsteigen, Adrenalin pur, kaufen, kaufen, kaufen , ja was noch? Das machh spass!
Ich kann´s nicht mehr warten, heute bei gute werbetrommel hätten wir schon die 25€ Kurs!
Der Text ist von mir. Also bitte, pSivida ist keine Spekulation, sondern nur für Anleger
Zitat von lson3: http://www.healthcaremarketing.eu/kommunikation/detail.php?r…
Ich weise ausdrücklich darauf hin das auch dieser text nicht von mir ist!
Danke
http://www.healthcaremarketing.eu/kommunikation/detail.php?r…
Ich weise ausdrücklich darauf hin das auch dieser text nicht von mir ist!
Ich weise ausdrücklich darauf hin das auch dieser text nicht von mir ist!
Trading Spotlight
hab ich wieder bei twitter gefunden und der text ist ganz bestimmt nicht von mir
http://de.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=59070073
pSivida to Present At Two Investment Conferences in September
Psivida (NASDAQ:PSDV)
Intraday Stock Chart
Today : Mittwoch 4 September 2013
pSivida Corp. (NASDAQ:PSDV), a specialty pharmaceutical company that is a leader in developing sustained release drugs for treatment of back-of-the-eye diseases, will present at two upcoming investor conferences in September.
pSivida will present at the Rodman & Renshaw Annual Global Investment Conference being held at the Millennium Broadway Hotel in New York on Tuesday, September 10 at 12:05 p.m. This presentation will be webcast and can be found at the following link: http://wsw.com/webcast/rrshq23/PSDV. Follow the official Rodman & Renshaw handle on Twitter @rodman_2013 and use #rodman2013 for conference information and updates.
pSivida will also present at the Stifel Nicolaus Healthcare Conference being held at the Four Seasons Boston Hotel, in the Winthrop Room, on Thursday, September 12 at 11:30 a.m. and will also be webcast: http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/stifel/healthcare2013/98207… All times are Eastern.
pSivida to Present At Two Investment Conferences in September
Psivida (NASDAQ:PSDV)
Intraday Stock Chart
Today : Mittwoch 4 September 2013
pSivida Corp. (NASDAQ:PSDV), a specialty pharmaceutical company that is a leader in developing sustained release drugs for treatment of back-of-the-eye diseases, will present at two upcoming investor conferences in September.
pSivida will present at the Rodman & Renshaw Annual Global Investment Conference being held at the Millennium Broadway Hotel in New York on Tuesday, September 10 at 12:05 p.m. This presentation will be webcast and can be found at the following link: http://wsw.com/webcast/rrshq23/PSDV. Follow the official Rodman & Renshaw handle on Twitter @rodman_2013 and use #rodman2013 for conference information and updates.
pSivida will also present at the Stifel Nicolaus Healthcare Conference being held at the Four Seasons Boston Hotel, in the Winthrop Room, on Thursday, September 12 at 11:30 a.m. and will also be webcast: http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/stifel/healthcare2013/98207… All times are Eastern.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 45.384.401 von lson3 am 04.09.13 15:29:00Von wem ist der Text?
Von dir?
Wenn nicht von dir, solltest du die Quelle angeben.
Von dir?
Wenn nicht von dir, solltest du die Quelle angeben.
It is sometimes said that it takes 30 years to assess the impact of a revolution. That’s probably true of the French, Russian and American ones. It’s also true for the Biotech revolution. We are 30 or more years into the Biotech revolution and so far there have been many successes and, inevitably, some of the wider-eyed claims remain science fiction (although that hardly is a barrier for some companies’ often successful sales pitches). So, what are some of the lessons?
Biotech products can provide transformational change. Gleevec, Avastin, Epogen, Humira and many more are fantastic drugs. Seven of the ten biggest drugs are now biotech products.
It’s not an easy path. Developing biotech products is no cheaper or less risky than developing small drug molecules. It still costs (well) over $1B on average and generally takes over 10 years to develop a new drug.
If developing new drugs isn’t quick, developing new drugs based on new technologies takes even longer, but can be worth it! Monoclonal antibodies were going to be big in the early 80s; 30 years later they are. Other technologies have had a tougher time (remember anti-sense?).
After 30 years of effort, we still can’t deliver Biologics very well. The vast majority of biotech products are injected, either subcutaneously, intravenously or intramuscularly. This greatly limits dosing frequency and thus can reduce efficacy.
Along with the successes and failures there are also some intriguing issues that perhaps few people saw coming, such as patent expirations and BioSimilars. It’s estimated that there is over $80B of patent protection expiring on biologics over the next eight years and yet the generic competition is lagging. The problem for generics is that no one really knows the exact structure of a protein, and thus even when a patent expires it’s impossible to show that a “generic” version of a biologic is exactly the same as the existing, marketed product. Hence these generic versions of Biologics are not considered the same, but are “BioSimilar.” A generic player must therefore take their version of a Biologic through extensive clinical testing and at the end of this testing, even if successful, they likely won’t get generic substitution so the generic model doesn’t quite work. This is a problem since it essentially stifles competition from the generic players. It also reduces the drive for innovation by the originator, if a Biologic works reasonably well, and there is little danger of competition (despite patent expiration) there really isn’t much drive to make an improved version. The innovator company already owns the market, so making something even better isn’t going to improve that.
Fortunately some companies are able to navigate the BioSimilar path, primarily in Europe where the regulatory systems rules lend themselves to this a bit more readily. Given some of the high cost and limited return of developing a BioSimilar product some companies are looking to make biologics that are slightly better than the original versions (so called “BioBetters”). The development costs are likely to similar to developing a BioSimilar, but the upside is better since a BioBetter would be able to effectively compete against the original drug.
Let’s summarize some of these points: 1) Biologics are hard to deliver leading to sub-optimal outcomes; 2) a lot of patent coverage on Biologics is expiring; 3) the traditional generic approach is difficult; due to cost and limited up-side. The BioBetter approach may be much more attractive. Biological “generics” will have to offer an improvement. This adds up to an enormous opportunity for drug delivery.
All of this neatly fits into the equation I’ve posted before, remember:
Therapy Gap + (Current Drug X Technology) = Transformational Change
The “Therapy Gap” arises from the difficulty in delivering Biologics. The “Current Drug” part of the equation comes from the patent expiration and competing similar drugs. The piece that seems to be largely missing at the moment is Technology, since no one can deliver Biologics. This may not last long. The commercial drive is there already with another $80B incentive coming soon. This is going to be felt by both originator companies who must protect their biologic from BioSimilar/BioBetter competition and the generics companies who need to go a step beyond their normal model. I think pSivida’s Tethadur technology may be one of the very few technologies that can provide sustained release of these molecules.
Companies who can provide the “Technology” (i.e. an ability to deliver biologics) that leads to Transformational Change are likely to do extremely well. Hopefully we’ll be one of them!
Biotech products can provide transformational change. Gleevec, Avastin, Epogen, Humira and many more are fantastic drugs. Seven of the ten biggest drugs are now biotech products.
It’s not an easy path. Developing biotech products is no cheaper or less risky than developing small drug molecules. It still costs (well) over $1B on average and generally takes over 10 years to develop a new drug.
If developing new drugs isn’t quick, developing new drugs based on new technologies takes even longer, but can be worth it! Monoclonal antibodies were going to be big in the early 80s; 30 years later they are. Other technologies have had a tougher time (remember anti-sense?).
After 30 years of effort, we still can’t deliver Biologics very well. The vast majority of biotech products are injected, either subcutaneously, intravenously or intramuscularly. This greatly limits dosing frequency and thus can reduce efficacy.
Along with the successes and failures there are also some intriguing issues that perhaps few people saw coming, such as patent expirations and BioSimilars. It’s estimated that there is over $80B of patent protection expiring on biologics over the next eight years and yet the generic competition is lagging. The problem for generics is that no one really knows the exact structure of a protein, and thus even when a patent expires it’s impossible to show that a “generic” version of a biologic is exactly the same as the existing, marketed product. Hence these generic versions of Biologics are not considered the same, but are “BioSimilar.” A generic player must therefore take their version of a Biologic through extensive clinical testing and at the end of this testing, even if successful, they likely won’t get generic substitution so the generic model doesn’t quite work. This is a problem since it essentially stifles competition from the generic players. It also reduces the drive for innovation by the originator, if a Biologic works reasonably well, and there is little danger of competition (despite patent expiration) there really isn’t much drive to make an improved version. The innovator company already owns the market, so making something even better isn’t going to improve that.
Fortunately some companies are able to navigate the BioSimilar path, primarily in Europe where the regulatory systems rules lend themselves to this a bit more readily. Given some of the high cost and limited return of developing a BioSimilar product some companies are looking to make biologics that are slightly better than the original versions (so called “BioBetters”). The development costs are likely to similar to developing a BioSimilar, but the upside is better since a BioBetter would be able to effectively compete against the original drug.
Let’s summarize some of these points: 1) Biologics are hard to deliver leading to sub-optimal outcomes; 2) a lot of patent coverage on Biologics is expiring; 3) the traditional generic approach is difficult; due to cost and limited up-side. The BioBetter approach may be much more attractive. Biological “generics” will have to offer an improvement. This adds up to an enormous opportunity for drug delivery.
All of this neatly fits into the equation I’ve posted before, remember:
Therapy Gap + (Current Drug X Technology) = Transformational Change
The “Therapy Gap” arises from the difficulty in delivering Biologics. The “Current Drug” part of the equation comes from the patent expiration and competing similar drugs. The piece that seems to be largely missing at the moment is Technology, since no one can deliver Biologics. This may not last long. The commercial drive is there already with another $80B incentive coming soon. This is going to be felt by both originator companies who must protect their biologic from BioSimilar/BioBetter competition and the generics companies who need to go a step beyond their normal model. I think pSivida’s Tethadur technology may be one of the very few technologies that can provide sustained release of these molecules.
Companies who can provide the “Technology” (i.e. an ability to deliver biologics) that leads to Transformational Change are likely to do extremely well. Hopefully we’ll be one of them!
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 45.357.273 von nikodimi am 30.08.13 14:14:56Alimera ist hier einfach ein sehr schwacher Vertragspartner. Aber der Boss von pSivida hat ja auf den Herbst ein Wunder zu Gunsten von pSivida versprochen.
Durchsuchen
