MESO

$MESO chatter on StockTwits

• 
  Wayne S@SageRiversBullishAug 4

  $MESO come on girl ya go now, sweet reversal

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  ser@FDALensJul 30

  $MESO $REPL it received CRL for efficacy, approval was later when CMC was resolved

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  R T@History101BullishJul 30

  $REPL and $MESO was eventually approved

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  A@MABA1Jul 30

  $MESO $REPL bro now rehashing the mesoblast situation (that I brought up initially as well as a positive play for me)

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  AlertsAndNews@AlertsAndNewsJul 30

  $MESO headline here after the AH close Mesoblast Reports Ryoncil® Net Revenues of US$36M for the Quarter and US$115M for First Full Year of Product Launch

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  ser@FDALensBearishJul 29

  $MESO $REPL 🚨 Fair Point 🚨 Mesoblast (pediatric GVHD): → Extremely limited treatment options → Lower regulatory bar makes more sense REPL (post-PD-1 melanoma): → Multiple treatment options already exist → After FDA review, efficacy looks below standard of care → Plus deaths the agency flagged as possibly related One setting has almost nothing. The other has alternatives — and the data didn’t clear the higher bar. Different situations. No bueno.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  ser@FDALensBearishJul 29

  $MESO $REPL Two big differences: 1. In some settings (like pediatric GFVH) there is essentially no real treatment option. The bar is lower because patients have nowhere else to go. 2. In advanced melanoma post-PD-1, there are options. And after the FDA tore into the data, REPL’s efficacy looks below standard of care — especially once you account for the response assessment problems and the 0% CR in higher tumor burden. Add the safety piece: multiple deaths in the trial, several of which the FDA flagged as possibly related. Desperate patients + no alternatives is one argument. Desperate patients + existing alternatives + questionable data + safety signals is a very different one. That’s the fair distinction.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  ser@FDALensBearishJul 29

  $MESO $REPL fair point, big difference, meso is in pediatric rare disease with no treatment vs melanoma is not rare, and as FDA doc showed there’s at least 2 treatments with better efficacy and safety

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  A@MABA1BullishJul 29

  $MESO $REPL i remember mesoblast getting 2 CRLs. Played out nicely for me in the end

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Cow Bells@cowneck_traderJul 29

  $REPL while I believe a third CRL is forthcoming, there is hope. I held $MESO through 2 CRLs and it was ultimately approved. Not comparing the drugs, trial design, etc.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Sammy B@hegdaomJul 17

  @mtalhambra $MESO will need to pay royalties to $CAPR

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Sammy B@hegdaomJul 17

  $CAPR $MESO

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  mtalhambra@mtalhambraBullishJul 17

  $CAPR $CAPR $MESO Mesoblast just hit Capricor with a patent suit over Deramiocel (CAP-1002), asserting three mesenchymal-stem-cell (MSC) patents (conveniently timed ~2 weeks before the 7/29 AdCom and ~5 weeks before the 8/22 PDUFA). I went through the complaint, the asserted patents, Capricor's own '076 patent, and 9 published CDC papers, and the whole case hinges on calling Capricor's cardiosphere-derived cells "MSCs," which the science pushes back on hard: CD90 runs ~7–24% vs. the ≥ 95% needed to qualify as an MSC, the cells are cardiac in origin (not marrow), and Deramiocel's FDA-reviewed potency is anti-fibrotic, not the immunosuppression one of the patents claims. Mesoblast is also caught in a vise; read the claims broadly enough to capture CDCs and they collide with pre-2014 prior art, with the freshly issued '722 patent looking especially IPR-vulnerable.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Sammy B@hegdaomJul 17

  @erpy @Oasis2 it would be very humorous if CAPR beat $MESO and was awarded a royalty on their sales

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Sammy B@hegdaomJul 17

  $CAPR $MESO $XBB

  View on StockTwits ↗

Recent $TICKER stream from stocktwits.com — refreshed every 5 minutes. Sentiment tags are self-reported by posters. Not investment advice.