Seeking Alpha

Biotech Dan's  Instablog

Biotech Dan
Send Message
Post-graduate student in chemical + bioengineering, get my kicks by learning about things that interest me! Looking to use my expertise and knowledge to better communicate biotech trade ideas to the average investor.
View Biotech Dan's Instablogs on:
  • APPY: Upcoming Binary Event

    As many of you should be aware, a binary event is coming in March. Early to mid has been mentioned, thus it can literally be just around the corner.

    My advice: if you bought at any time around when my first article was posted, you should be well in the black (up to 10%). Even greater opportunity has been shown in past days where the share price has appreciated as high as $2.65. If you are an investor who cannot take on any amount of risk, then sell out. There is no reason for you to hold through a binary event. If losing a large portion of this investment would seriously harm you, then do not hold.

    A binary event is not something one should gamble on with money they are not readily willing to lose. It is of my opinion that APPY1 will produce favorable results, again. However, that is my opinion. You should make your investments and investment decisions off of what YOU think.

    Personally, I am going to hold. I can't foresee APPY1 suddenly becoming ineffective after it has been proven through past trials (and already has European approval). But the chance of success is not 100%.

    Be responsible with what you have. If you are incredibly anxious - perhaps risky investments are not for you.

    Disclosure: I am long APPY.

    Tags: APPY
    Feb 27 8:38 AM | Link | 5 Comments
  • The Value In APPY1


    I feel there is a lot of misconception over APPY1. I have seen many comments questioning the usefulness of such a device. When posting my article on APPY (check my profile if you are inclined), I did not anticipate such a backlash from the community.

    I am going to discuss the comments that I have seen regarding APPY1 here:

    Robert posted on another article:

    A normal/low WBC count, which is already performed on the patient, has a NPV of 96% in children. Who needs another inaccurate test.
    The APPY1 test is worthless in my opinion.

    I posted a lengthy response within that SA analysis on APPY after researching and accessing the article which I assume he crept up on.

    If you would like the full response, please find the article here:

    For here, I will start by saying Robert conveniently left out a few important facts. One is that this NPV of 96% in children actually refers to toddlers aged 1-3.9 years old. For children aged 4-11.9, the NPV is 89.5%. The next thing that was left out was just what this NPV refers to. It isn't a 96% true negative result for ALL toddlers. It is a 96% NPV for toddlers who have a low or medium white blood cell count. Obviously this is not every single toddler, and so if the test were applied to ALL toddlers - the NPV would drop. Second, Robert only attached a value for NPV and not any other statistical result. There is a reason APPY1 reports more than just one statistical figure. I outline within my lengthier comment why JUST NPV is not an accurate representation of a test accuracy at all. It turns out the PPV (accuracy in predicting positive events) was 42%. Lastly, the study was not conducted in an appropriate manner - so it is on uneven grounds and cannot even consider to be compared to APPY1. The diagnostic tool from APPY is tested in a blinded study. The study Robert posted was performed unblinded, and the article authors reported within their literature paper that multiple sources of bias did exist. This included purposefully selecting patients who looked sicker and more likely to "better perform" within their study.

    Within my article, rootbeer posted:

    I agree with your article on PGNX. I disagree with this article. The standard of care for diagnosing appendicitis is a physical exam, followed by a white blood cell count, followed by ultrasound and/or CT. In children, we use ultrasound in an attempt to visualize the appendix. If it is seen and it is increased in size, the work up is done. If it is not seen, as is frequently the case, we proceed to CT. If the appendix is not seen by CT, then the surgeon is forced to use best judgement in either proceeding to surgery or close monitoring if WBC and physical exam are unremarkable. If appendix is seen and is normal, the work up is done. If the appendix is seen and is enlarged, inflamed, etc, the patient goes to surgery. Pregnant women are diagnosed with ultrasound and/or MRI. The reason that imaging exams are used in the work up of suspected appendicitis is to avoid a missed case of appendicitis. Even one missed case of appendicitis in a child can be devastating to the child and eventually all the physicians involved in the case. The test offered by Venaxis will have little to no value here in the US. The threat of malpractice for a missed case of appendicitis forces the ER physicians and the surgeons to request any and every test to rule in and rule out appendicitis. The test offered by Venaxis does not do a good enough job of ruling it out.

    I am a fan of his posting, and his comments strike me with intelligence.

    However, inspection of his profile reveals he is a radiologist. As such, he will always have an inherent bias to CT scanning. You are always going to unknowingly uphold your own work in the highest regard - it is only natural.

    I also responded to his post within my article. The lengthy procedure for diagnosing appendicitis, in my opinion, already outlines the need for a speedier and more efficient test. We have already looked at the advantage of APPY1 to white blood cell count testing (see above). If ANYTHING, APPY1 would provide a SOLID replacement for white blood cell count within this diagnosis procedure. It is better suited for diagnosing appendicitis (and negative cases), and it even uses white blood cell count as one of the measurements within the test. This alone should prove that APPY1 has a place within the diagnostic testing for appendicitis - a bearish investor has unknowingly admitted a proper placement for it.

    As I've also mentioned, I feel his wording further stresses the need for further testing. "In children, we use ultrasound in an attempt to visualize the appendix." ATTEMPT. The ultrasound itself is open to extreme interpretation. The process of running the ultrasound test + making sense of the data is a job in itself. This easily takes up valuable employee time. APPY1 is a quick test that is not biased by human interpretation of what "could be" or "perhaps is".

    rootbeer goes on to claim that imaging is used so that appendicitis is not missed. But CT imaging (perhaps the gold standard) has a diagnostic accuracy of 95-98% ( Compared to APPY1 (mean NPV of 97%, sensitivity 97%), there is no statistical significance between CT imaging and APPY1 when a negative result is present.

    Closing Statements

    To all those remaining bearish on the APPY1 diagnostic tool, perhaps you could better enlighten me why? If your child was waiting in the ER with abdominal pain, which would you prefer - sending them immediately to a CT scan resulting in high doses of radioactivity, and a diagnostic accuracy of 95-98%, or to attempt to avoid that situation with APPY1?

    Disclosure: I am long APPY.

    Tags: APPY
    Feb 06 9:17 PM | Link | 18 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


More »

Latest Comments

Most Commented
  1. The Value In APPY1 (18 Comments)
  2. APPY: Upcoming Binary Event (5 Comments)
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.