If you look at Novartis' Q2 2017 IR presentation PDF
you will see this on page 80:
Study NCT01077518 COMPLEMENT A+B (COMB157E2301)
Indication: Refractory iNHL (3rd Line)
Phase: Phase 3A
Patients: 346
Primary Outcome Measures: Progression-free-survival following ofatumumab and
bendamustine combination therapy
Arms/Intervention:
• Ofatumumab and Bendamustine infusions
• Bendamustine infusion
Target Patients: Patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
unresponsive to rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen
during or within six months of treatment
Expected Completion: Q4-2017
Publication: Targeting congress in Q2-2018 (tbc)
In another article from August, 2015:
Swiss drugs maker Novartis has bought the rights to a medication that could treat multiple sclerosis from British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline in a deal worth up to $1bn (£637m).........
As part of the asset-swap, GSK formed a consumer health joint venture with Novartis, while at the same buying the Swiss company's vaccines business.
In turn, Novartis, which already boasts a substantial oncology portfolio, has bought GSK's cancer drugs.
For GSK, the complex deal is part of a strategy by chief executive Sir Andrew Witty to return the business to growth and reverse the trend of the past few years of falling revenues and profits.
Yet a different article states:
First-half 2016 net sales of Arzerra by Novartis were $24.8 million a decrease of 22%. Sales were negatively impacted by increased competition, primarily from Imbruvica (ibrutinib).
Yes, it's no wonder someone wants VSTM's stock price as low as possible. Because, after all, a buyout is based to an extent on the stock price. Who's going to gain by messing with VSTM's stock price (i.e. acquiring VSTM)?
1. Novartis (they paid $1 billion for a useless cancer drug). They're trying to make use of their $1 billion by using the drug for MS indications.
2. GSX - they sold Novartis the drug (probably knowing it was worthless? lol). They can now turn around and acquire a better drug, for the same price (or better).
3. If AbbVie doesn't want competition, they better pay up now or possibly face something bigger down the line.
BTW, AbbVie paid $21 billion to Pharmacyclics for IMBRUVICA (ibrutinib). Yes, IMBRUVICA has a number of indications and Pharmacyclics had a lot of promising items as well. But IMBRUVICA was their star and as I previously noted, as for efficacy:
Summary of ibrutinib vs ofatumumab:
1. ibrutinib (Imbruvica) was statistically superior.
2. ibrutinib's PFS was 9.4 months vs ofatumumab's 8.1 months. Ratio = 9.4/8.1 = 1.16
3. ibrutinib had an "overall" 57% reduction in the risk of progression/death.
Summary of Verasem's drug (duvelisib) vs ofatumumab:
1. duvelisib was statistically superior.
2. duvelisib's PFS is 13.3 months vs ofatumumab's 9.9 months. Ratio = 13.3/9.9 = 1.34
3. duvelisib had a 48% (unsure if "overall" or specific groups) reduction in the risk of progression/death.
