Nada, exactly. By the way, it was only 6 that were aware of it (not 6 that were not aware). More importantly, the negative bias due to Exubera was reported as being the strongest factor to not prescribe Afrezza. Educating the medical profession to change this current perception is going to be key.

He was better as Kermit.

My interpretation was that partnership would occur after the trial results are available. But as Ron alluded to in the last post, the critical-for-approval type 1 study is open label which means the data might be shared with potential partners as it came in (the type 2 study is blinded). The point at which enough data would be available to be convincing for a partner to feel comfortable to pull the trigger is anyone’s guess, but my feeling is it will not be before they run out of cash this fall. And whether a partner would want to wait until the type 2 data was released (~mid 2013) is another question to consider, given the potential huge increase in market size.

It seemed like Matt’s comments regarding financing at today’s conference were aligned with Al’s reference on Monday to the previous raise. The implication is they feel the current study results will be stellar and upon data release will ease partnership negotiations and/or will allow for better financing options at that time; in other words they just need to raise enough cash now to get to that point.

Matt’s responses to a question about expectations for partnership timing; before or after Phase 3 data:

20:47 I think it’s very possible something could happen before then, but I wouldn’t count on it.

21:25 But human nature being what it is, I think the desire to have Phase 3 data is always going to be there, particularly if we can get some of the stronger data we’re hoping for out of these studies our interests might be aligned on that point…

Response to a question about cash needs:

27:40 …it would certainly be much easier than the last one we did (equity financing), since it wouldn’t take very much to get us to a significant milestone…

Opc,

Thanks for clearing that up. The wording to me was vague as to whether the cohort of previously Exubera-treated subjects were simply being followed out two additional years for cancer occurence/mortality, with no new Exubera being administered.

Your source raises some good points about the difficulties in interpreting data from this type of study. Hopefully the final data when published will give more clarity around this; until then making interpretations from the abstract alone is pretty speculative IMO.