Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Interesting rabbit hole...
See replied to post.
Somaxon seeks to wake up Silenor launch with P&G alarm clock
Source EP Vantage
http://www.evaluatepharma.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Story&id=222099
This is a good article. If the drug is a failure somx gets hurt by the fact that they didn't get an upfront payment with a 20 percent royalty, but the company wouldn't have been worth anything anyway. If the drug is successful the company will keep 85 percent of the economics and will be very successful. At this price there isn't much priced in for a successful launch so it is a good risk/reward, I believe
Company Somaxon Pharmaceuticals
Related: Procter & Gamble
Date August 26, 2010
Somaxon Pharmaceuticals has finally delivered a deal on Silenor, and it is an unusual one. For a fixed fee and royalties, Somaxon has hired the OTC sales force of consumer products giant Procter & Gamble for a September launch of the insomnia medication, a deal that leaves the smaller partner with nearly all of the potential revenue but also nearly all of the risk.
The deal points up the need for brand awareness in the highly competitive and genericised insomnia space as Somaxon executives focused on the reach P&G’s sales force will provide with primary care physicians, pharmacies and managed care plans. Somaxon shares jumped 29% higher Wednesday to reach $4.34 on news that a long-sought deal had finally be secured, a healthy gain but still less than half the $9.21 they closed at on March 18, following FDA approval of Silenor (Somaxon wins approval for Silenor and hunt for partner begins, March 19, 2010). Investors clearly remain sceptical about the commercial potential of this product, even with P&G on board.
Somaxon now plans a September launch of Silenor, a low-dose version of the antidepressant doxepin hydrochloride. The California company’s pitch on the sleeping pill is that it is not a controlled substance like so many other sleep-assistance drugs and therefore carries reduced risk of dependence, addiction or withdrawal.
Launch sequence commencing
On word of the deal, analysts from Jefferies increased their 12-month price target on Somaxon to $10 from $9 along with their 2015 sales estimates for Silenor to $322m from $257m.
After spending $108m in R&D in the last six years to develop Silenor, Somaxon’s bank accounts were nearly empty following FDA approval, with just $4m in cash left. With its stock riding high in March, the firm raised a timely $52.8m by selling 6.9 million shares at $8.25, a discount from the $9.51 they closed on March 25, the day the offer was priced.
Although the buyers of that offer are probably smarting at today's share price, the new cash did allow Somaxon to hire the French contract sales organisation Publicis Touchpoint Services to give it 110 dedicated sales representatives to target the top 30% of insomnia drug prescribers.
The partnership with P&G nearly doubles that sales force to 215, with the reps from the Cincinnati firm focusing on their strengths in primary care physicians along with pharmacies and managed care plans, Somaxon executives said in an investor conference call Wednesday. Since Warner Chilcott bought P&G's prescription drugs unit the reps have largely been pitching the few remaining P&G OTC products, including Prilosec OTC.
With intense competition in the insomnia market, ensuring that Silenor is side-by-side with Lunesta and Ambien on pharmacy shelves will be critical to Silenor’s commercial success, as the launch could run aground if patients, once prescribed, cannot get the drug.
Likewise, getting on managed-care formularies will also be important, although Jeffrey Raser, Somaxon’s senior vice president and chief commercial officer, said Silenor will be priced at below the average of the three branded products on the market.
No check collector
Under the deal, Somaxon executives estimate that they will pay P&G no more than 15% of net sales. Each party will be responsible for paying for their own sales force, and in a sign that the risk is still firmly in Somaxon’s hands, it will also pay for all other commercialisation costs.
Presumably, all costs related to development of line extensions or OTC formulations would belong to Somaxon also. But significantly, P&G would have right of first refusal on an OTC product, where the consumer products giant retains a significant presence. Somaxon executives highlighted this part of the deal as a wise lifecycle management strategy.
In its unusual deal with P&G, Somaxon has structured a partnership that will allow it to be more than just a check collector. However, should the team stumble out of the blocks, it looks like only Somaxon will be the partner to take a fall.
Mesoblast Limited $1.86 ...
HALF-YEAR RESULTS
Strong Progress, Well-Funded, Broadening Product Pipeline
Melbourne, Australia; 25 February 2010: Australia's regenerative medicine company, Mesoblast Limited (ASX:MSB), today reported its half-year results for the year ended 31 December 2009, with cash reserves of $14.65 million.
Mesoblast Chairman Brian Jamieson said: "The Board of Directors is very pleased with management's strategic focus, prudent use of funds, and timely execution of the company's global business objectives.
"Our continued progress underscores the tremendous commercial potential of our adult stem cell technology platform and Mesoblast's position as a global leader.
"The strong results further enhance our ability to action multiple complementary revenue generating strategies, including taking products to market ourselves, entering into distribution arrangements, and forming strategic licensing partnerships," Mr Jamieson added.
Spinal Diseases Franchise
Mesoblast has a major focus on building a suite of products for spinal diseases, the fastest growing market in orthopaedics. Specific accomplishments during the period included:
* Highly successful preclinical trial results of our adult stem cells for the treatment of degenerative intervertebral disc disease, the leading cause of low back pain, which affects an estimated four million people in the United States alone
* A single low-dose injection of Mesoblast's allogeneic adult stem cells into severely damaged intervertebral discs of sheep resulted in dramatic reversal of the degenerative process, regrowth of disc cartilage, and sustained normalisation of disc pathology, anatomy and function
* Mesoblast anticipates commencing a Phase 2 clinical trial for repair of degenerative disc disease during the first half of 2010
* Continued, active enrolment of patients in the Phase 2 clinical trial of our spinal fusion product NeoFuse™ for minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery in the lower back.
Osteoarthritis
Mesoblast is developing products for the treatment of cartilage loss in the knee and other large joints such as the hip. During the period, active enrolment of patients continued in Mesoblast's Phase 2 trial of RepliCart™ for preventing osteoarthritis of the knee after knee trauma and reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament.
Angioblast
Mesoblast maintains a highly productive relationship with United States associate company, Angioblast Systems Inc., in which it holds 38.4% equity on a non-diluted basis. This investment continues to deliver significant shareholder value as Angioblast advances the shared platform stem cell technology for cardiac, vascular, bone marrow and eye conditions, and most recently diabetes.
Angioblast's most significant highlights for the period were:
* Successful results from the first 18 of 30 patients receiving a bone marrow transplant using umbilical cord blood expanded by the patented allogeneic (or off-the-shelf) stem cells.
* The company's product is being developed under a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Orphan Drug Designation granted to Angioblast for expanding haematopoietic stem and progenitor cell numbers in patients with haematologic malignancies. This means that there is the potential for a fast track to Phase 3 and, if effective, accelerated product registration.
* Positive interim results from a 60 patient randomised Phase 2a trial showing that the lowest dosage of cells is able to induce a highly significant and sustained improvement in heart function compared to control patients. The safety profile of the cells has been excellent, and the company expects to complete recruitment of the final 20 patients receiving the highest dose of cells during the first half of 2010.
* Significant preclinical trial results showing that the proprietary stem cells could be a potential treatment for diabetes. Given the epidemic proportions at which this disease is evolving, this is a huge potential market opportunity for the company.
About Mesoblast
Mesoblast Limited (ASX:MSB) is committed to the development of novel treatments for orthopaedic conditions, including the rapid commercialisation of a unique adult stem cell technology aimed at the regeneration and repair of bone and cartilage. Our focus is to progress through clinical trials and international regulatory processes necessary to commercialise the technology in as short a timeframe as possible. Mesoblast has the worldwide exclusive rights for a series of patents and technologies developed over more than 10 years relating to the identification, extraction and culture of adult Mesenchymal Precursor Cells (MPCs). The Company has acquired 38.4% (on a non-diluted basis) of Angioblast Systems Inc., an American company developing the platform MPC technology for the treatment of cardiac, vascular and eye diseases including repair and regeneration of blood vessels and heart muscle. Mesoblast and Angioblast are jointly funding and progressing the core technology. Mesoblast's strategy is to maximise shareholder value through both corporate partnerships and the rapid and successful completion of clinical milestones. www.mesoblast.com
For further information, please contact:
Julie Meldrum
Corporate Communications Director
Mesoblast Limited
T: + 61 (03) 9639 6036
M: +61 (0) 419 228 128
E: julie.meldrum@mesoblast.com
W: www.mesoblast.com
Source: Mesoblast Limited
ISCO - over $.80 today (I only wish I had bought more).
Mesoblast Limited - Another new 52 week high!!! Australian Biotech with adult stem cell patents. Check it out and thank me later...
Mesoblast Limited (Mesoblast) is a biotechnology company committed to the development of adult stem cell products targeting a range of bone, cartilage and musculoskeletal conditions. The Company holds a 38.4% interest in Angioblast Systems, Inc. (Angioblast), a company developing the same platform technology for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, including repair and regeneration of blood vessels and heart muscle. Mesoblast is developing an allogeneic or off-the-shelf cell product, called NeoFuse, to generate bony spinal fusion. In August 2009, the United States Food and Drug Administration cleared a Phase II clinical trial of its allogeneic adult stem cells for use in minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The 24-patient trial, based at multiple United States sites, is comparing the effectiveness and safety of two low doses, NeoFuse with autograft in minimally invasive surgery for fusion of the lumbar spine.
http://stemcelldaily.com/index.php?s=mesoblast
They also own a minority stake in Angioblast
http://stemcelldaily.com/index.php?s=angioblast
http://www.google.com/finance?q=ASX:MSB
http://www.google.com/finance?q=PINK:MEOBF
http://www.google.com/finance?q=PINK:MBLTY
CTGI update: Sadly the unexpected passing of CEO leaves some uncertainty for a stock that holds great technology. I cannot recommend buying it until further guidance from the new leadership and we see if they have enough "faith" to buy new shares themselves.
I know I only have 6 peoplemarks and this board has been dead a long time and only has 3 boardmarks but my previous post is my Christmas present (almost like a PM) to a select few who might appreciate it. GNITE
Some Biotech's to watch...
ISCO.OB @ $.51 - Long term potential is incredible but it has been on a downward trend and looks like a good time to buy and hold and average down if you get the chance.
CTGI.PK @ $.25 - Don't let the "pinky" keep you from looking further into CSMG Technologies because they were an OTCBB stock not long ago and they recently started filing reports again and INSIDERS ARE BUYING. CTGI owns (86%) of LTC a private company that has all the patents and FDA APPROVAL for "Live Tissue Connect" a revolutionary surgical device that can "weld" live tissue without glues, staples or sutures.
http://www.livetissueconnect.com/
CSMG also owns a carbon capture company that may also have very high potential.
ASX:MSB @ $1.37 Mesoblast Limited - Australian Biotech with adult stem cell patents that will blow you away. No board on ihub so you heard it here first. - SuperSquirrel
http://www.google.com/finance?q=ASX:MSB
http://www.google.com/finance?q=PINK:MEOBF
http://www.google.com/finance?q=PINK:MBLTY
Yeah its definitely hard to keep up with. I actually down own that many stocks trying to focus on the ones I do own and know all the public details possible. Altus seems rather interesting to me, the risk is the technology isn't yet officially proven though the Genentech collaboration adds a lot of credibility. I like the long term potential and that is generally my investment plan.
Ghmm, Sorry, no I haven't seen the royalty rate. Often a company will just give a ballpark range, but let me know if you find it.
I'm finding that trying to get/stay up to speed on dozens of bio stocks is a daunting task, and I keep finding new ones to check out. I don't know how Dew does it. Maybe amphetamines are the answer :o)
ALTU/Genetech royalty rate:
gfp,
Do you know if they ever hinted at what the royalty rate is beyond saying "double digits"? I didn't listen to the deal call but have heard the others and never heard anything behond "double digit" which is a bit too vague for me. I'd like to know is it more like 10 or in the 20's? TIA
I agree 100% about this strategy being a viable one, I've noticed many times that people could buy a stock for not much more than I paid for it AFTER a big binary event was positive - it definitely makes me feel like a sucker when that happens.
I don't think that's going to happen with COR this time, I think everybody and his brother that already knows about COR has an expectation of a quick rise to $5+ if the FDA releases the hold, so I think the price will open high the next day after the news, and be in the $5s very quickly.
CLSC is a little more likely to fit your theory - with good trial results I'm sure it will jump nicely at the open but since it is so unknown there will still probably be good gains to be made for those that buy quickly at the open.
I'm just guessing though... we'll see soon enough on both of them.
Ruengies - I'm now completely out of CLSC and I don't have any great logical reasons for it, but I usually try to listen to my gut.
My largest concern remains the financing and the unpredictable effects it may end up having even if the trials are successful.
I think there's a good chance the trial results will be good, but not great, and there will be a shorting attack. It wouldn't take much to scare a lot of small investors out of their shares.
Conversely, I've also listened to my gut about COR and I am fully loaded now. The difference between COR and CLSC is that if COR gets whacked by the FDA's decision, I'm pretty confident the price will eventually recover, even if it takes 6 or 12 or 18 months.
For the chance to make 6X my money (I bought a bunch at $1.10, and a bunch more at the price points between 1.10 and today's $3), it makes sense to me to take a calculated risk shot and be prepared to hold my shares during the down period if the FDA decision turns out bad.
Don't let me scare you out of CLSC, you've done good DD on it - but whatever you do, be sure to listen to your gut.
Thanks, Gfp. Aiming, how about you?
I was unaware of some of what happened surrounding the Cortex initial move. I've grown a bit concerned about Cobalis as I've studied the first Phase 3 results and the IR/PR firm has failed to answer my question. (I don't know if you've looked over on the Cobalis board, but it looks like beachgal may be dragging some answers out of them.) As a result of my concern, I've sold about half my holdings, but have the cash ready to buy if the news is good.
Ruengies, It might work, but Cobalis is so thinly traded that it might backfire. The presence of Cornell and the floorless convertible is another wildcard factor.
Sometimes there is a lag time between an announcement and the up move. Cortex's post-Roth period is an example, but there was a confluence of factors there which might be difficult to repeat. First of all, the "announcement" (good electron microscope results) was not necessarily viewed as a high profile binary type event, even though it turned out to be. And the announcement was given at an investor conference, and there was no press release right away. The announcement was not heard by that many people, and the extent of its importance may not have been widely appreciated. Another factor was that there had just been a mini-PIPE completed, and at the open of the market it seemed like some of those PIPE shares were being sold into the rally. For an hour or so there was a huge amount of liquidity, and one could have bought as many shares as you wanted in the $1.20-1.30 range. Once the PIPE related dumping was over, the stock took off big time.
While there are some similarities to the Cobalis situation, their event will be announced immediately with a prominent press release. The presence of Cornell and the floorless convertible is a complicating factor, but I'm not familiar enough with these to really make an educated guess as to the effect it might have. On the plus side, we know that Cobalis directors can't sell any of their shares, so this removes one potential upside barrier. But I'm not sure what Cornell has in mind as a strategy. They could just sit tight and let the stock explode to the upside, figuring they can convert at 0.99 cents anytime they want. Or they could conceivably try to pull a fast one. I really don't have any previous experience with companies burdened by a floorless convertible, so I'd only be guessing.
Aiming and GFP, I'd like your thoughts on this. If the reasoning is sound, perhaps you can benefit from it as well. It seems to me that small companies, especially really small companies like Cobalis are not likely to really explode upwards on good news. Rather it takes a little while for the news to spread. So on good news, we who are watching closely will need only to compete with a few hundred others who want to add to their holdings before the rush from the rest of the investing world. That's where the big money will be made.
On the other hand, if the news is bad, holders will be dumping and no buyers will be there. The rest of the world doesn't enter in to the picture.
My thought then is to get down to a bare minimum or zero now, even though the price is down, and simply watch for good news. Then I buy at a sure thing at a small premium, rather than risk losing 75% of my investment.
This all seems pretty basic logic right now, but it hadn't occurred to me before. What cha think?
test -never mind
--------A1-------A2------A3-----A4
Week 1--7.25 6.85 6.7 6.5
Week 2 7.75 7.7 7.4 7.25
Week 3 8.6 7.85 7.6 7.55
Week 4 9.1 8.2 7.9 8
Week 5 8.9 8.4 7.8 8.25
Week 6 9.55 8.7 8.25 8.7
A2d A3d A4d
Week 1 5.5% 7.6% 10.3%
Week 2 0.6% 4.5% 6.5%
Week 3 8.7% 11.6% 12.2%
Week 4 9.9% 13.2% 12.1%
Week 5 5.6% 12.4% 7.3%
Week 6 8.9% 13.6% 8.9%
Arm 2 DELTA Arm 3 DELTA Arm 4 DELTA
Week 1 5.8% 8.2% 11.5%
Week 2 0.6% 4.7% 6.9%
Week 3 9.6% 13.2% 13.9%
Week 4 11.0% 15.2% 13.8%
Week 5 6.0% 14.1% 7.9%
Week 6 9.8% 15.8% 9.8%
Cortex - Nice MF article today >>> Consider Cortex
http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2007/05/02/consider-cortex.aspx
Mike Havrilla
May 2, 2007
Although Cortex's (AMEX: COR) attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drug, CX-717, was put on clinical hold, recent findings could lift the freeze and get the drug back on track for FDA approval.
Back in March of 2006, shares of Cortex approached $5 per share, after it reported positive results in a small clinical study of CX-717. Results showed that the drug was safe, effective, well-tolerated, and produced no increase in heart rate or blood pressure -- a major advantage over the majority of existing ADHD drugs (e.g. Ritalin and Shire's (Nasdaq: SHPGY) Adderall), which are strong stimulants with occasional cardiovascular side effects. Non-stimulant treatment options such as Lilly's (NYSE: LLY) Strattera carry other risks, such as suicidal thoughts and liver damage.
On April 18, Cortex submitted a data package to the FDA providing convincing evidence that the specific brain tissue specimen changes seen in animal toxicology studies -- which previously caused the FDA to put CX-717 on clinical hold -- are a postmortem fixation artifact unrelated to the drug, and are not found in the tissue of the animal while it is still alive. The FDA partially lifted the clinical hold on CX-717 last fall, but dosing restrictions in this ruling prevent Cortex from pursuing further studies for the lucrative ADHD indication.
With shares of Cortex currently changing hands at around $2.50, and a market cap of only $100 million, this news represents an excellent opportunity for speculative biotech investors. The FDA should respond to Cortex by mid-June, and will probably lift the current high-dose restriction imposed on CX-717. If the company gets this crucial endorsement from the FDA, it should quickly move back above its previous $5 per share.
The ADHD indication is pivotal to the future development of CX-717 and Cortex, because it opens the way to major partnership deals with larger biotech companies or big pharma. The treatment of ADHD represents a large, growing market in the United States, especially since currently approved drugs are riddled with major safety issues. <<<
Ruengies - here's the link I was remembering regarding the explanation of "pivotal trial"
http://www.adisinsight.com/aClientServiceinfo/RDI%20Phases%20of%20Dev.pdf
To be considered pivotal, a study must meet at least the following 4 FDA-defined criteria:
Be controlled using placebo or a standard therapy.
Have a double-blinded design when such a design is practical and ethical.
Be randomized.
Be of adequate size. Study sample size is a common clinical trial design flaw.
Ruengies - My unscientific translation would be either:
1) They screwed up in not specifying the trial correctly to the FDA
or
2) They had to analyze the data differently than originally anticipated, thus invalidating the plan they had submitted to the FDA.
P.S. I understand if you hoard your last reply of the day. :^)
Gfp, does this sound like a reasonable explanation to you? The response is from Randychub. (Note: I'm down to having only one post reamining for the day, so I'm going to be very selective. Or -- God forbid -- I may have to buy a membership!)
ruengies3 - "The statistical analysis utilized a modified intent to treat and an ANOVA (ANalysis Of VAriation) model to determine the treatment effects for the four arm study and certain assumptions used were not specified in the statistical analysis plan (SAP)."
The key here is the "not specified in the statistical analysis plan". Cobalis did not specify the entire plan used to the FDA when they recieved approval to run the first trial. The same plan is being used, only this time the entire plan was approved by the FDA. The FDA is very Picky.
Hope this is helpful!
Randy
Gfp - maybe that's the answer, Cornell wins either way.
If the trials are good, they win by exercising at .9x while the stock goes to $3 (or whatever it hits).
If the trials fail, Cornell shorts the company out of existence and never has to cover their shorts.
It wouldn't surprise me if Cornell would also be at the front of the line for creditors as well after the bankruptcy. :^)
Aiming, Good question. I've had no previous experience with companies that have floorless convertibles (the dreaded "death spiral" financing). I understand basically how it works in theory, but have never followed those types of companies. When I started following bio, I remember experienced posters discussing the dreaded death spiral deals, so I vowed to stay away from those type situations like the plague.
There's a guy over on Yahoo, Irgoudy, who seems to have considerable experience with penny stocks / distressed micro caps though. In one post he pointed out that firms like Cornell actually stand to make more profit when the company succeeds. I don't know though. I'm way out of my depth with this type stock.
The company was down to around $50,000 in cash last Fall, so I guess that would certainly qualify as distressed. Dew could probably give you better advice, but I don't think he follows Cobalis. Mention death spiral floorless convertible to him though and I'm sure he'd say stay away. I wish I could provide some better advice.
I ain't a scared of no binary 'vent. I'm hangin' tough and prepared to buy a bunch more. My escape plan if the financing causes a problem is to be ready to bail just as quickly. It may or may not work, but since I don't know what to make of the financing issue, it's the best I can do and stay a player.
My intuition tells me Onco is not lying and that the news may hit tomorrow morning. On the other hand, I don't see any afterhours buying.
Gfp - any thoughts on how the financing will affect things if the trials are successful?
That was the greater concern that prompted me to sell some today.
I've seen strange counter-intuitive stuff happen when hedge funds are involved in a small stock.
E.g., we know that Cornell will probably short CLSC into oblivion if the trials fail.
But what will Cornell do if the trials are successful? Does Cornell make more money if the stock goes up and they convert the debt at the .9x price (forget exactly what it was)?
Or does Cornell somehow make more if they work at capping the stock if good results are announced?
Or some combo of the two, making money both ways?
Looks like the stock is getting some volume, so I hope I didn't scare you guys out of a big winner. Remember, I'm the CD guy, and tend to be risk averse. Either way, good luck with Cobalis :o)
Ruengies, Aiming, Another thing to remember is that the twin pivotal trials used only the best aspect of the first trial (only two arms - one arm 6 weeks on drug and one arm 6 weeks on placebo). That's why I still think the twin trials have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding.
If the downside risk was say a 50-70% temporary haircut, and the company would eventually recover to advance something else in their pipeline, I wouldn't be that concerned about betting on this binary event. But failure of the twin trials will mean the end of the company in short order, and one might not have a chance to salvage much/any of one's investment. That's due to the company's extremely bad financial position and the toxic financing in place. So this event is truly binary in every sense. The trials might work out, there's a reasonable chance, but it's clearly for gunslingers :o)
Ruengies, It sounds like they gave you basically the same wording that is in the SEC filing (see below). I think they would have liked the trial to have been one of the two required, but for some reason it turned out to be lacking in some way. What the shortcoming was I'm not sure. Someone over on Dew's board or SI might know enough about bio trial statistics to know what the importance of "ANOVA / Analysis of Variation" and SAP are. It gets complicated. Usually if a trial falls short it could be from the trial design being flawed in some way, or from the drug not working as hoped, or some combination. Or sometimes too many people drop out of a trial (not in this case though), or the dose selected was too low, etc. The obvious thing I could point to are those two questionable arms (placebo for 3 weeks/drug for 3 weeks, and placebo for 1 week/drug for 5 weeks). If those patients were instead put into the drug for 6 week arm, perhaps the trial would have been powered to make the grade as one of the pivotal Phase 3s. Just a guess though -
>>> In October 2005, we reported results of an initial six-week 714 patient Phase III trial designed to study various PreHistinTM dose regimens for reducing seasonal allergy symptoms when compared to placebo. As reported, the statistical analysis utilized a modified intent to treat and an ANOVA (ANalysis Of VAriation) model to determine the treatment effects for the four arm study and certain assumptions used were not specified in the statistical analysis plan (SAP). Although the data resulting from the prior Phase III clinical trial demonstrated that patients who were administered PreHistinTM showed a statistically significant reduction of allergy symptoms when the modified analysis was applied, the data most likely will be viewed by the FDA as supportive data and not as pivotal Phase III results required to secure approval.
In June 2006, we announced that we intend to initiate two identical, Phase III clinical trials of our anti-allergy medication PreHistinTM in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. The randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled studies are intended to assess the efficacy, overall safety and tolerability of our flagship drug PreHistinTM to prevent the onset and reduce the severity of allergy symptoms.
The new study design calls for two simultaneously conducted Phase III clinical trials, each comprised of one placebo arm and one active arm receiving 3.3 mg of sublingual PreHistinTM administered twice daily for the six weeks of the study. In July 2006, we conducted the double blind, placebo-controlled trials will be conducted at 23 sites throughout the United States during the Ragweed allergy season. The trials utilized electronic diary records to assess improvement in the severity of nasal allergy symptoms. A total of 1,550 patients were randomized into the twin studies to receive either placebo or PreHistinTM for three weeks prior to the onset of the allergy season, and for an additional three weeks into the season. The patients' diaries and studies were completed on October 6, 2006. <<<
Cobalis replied:
The statistical analysis utilized a modified intent to treat and an ANOVA (ANalysis Of VAriation) model to determine the treatment effects for the four arm study and certain assumptions used were not specified in the statistical analysis plan (SAP). Although the data resulting from the prior Phase III Clinical Trial demonstrated that patients who were administered PreHistin showed a statistically significant reduction of allergy symptoms when the modified analysis was applied, the data most likely will be viewed by the FDA as supportive data and not as pivotal Phase III results required to secure approval.
I refined the question to Cobalis, as follows:
Thank you for your quick reply. To clarify my question, what was it about the first trial that caused the Company to view it as likely to be deemed supportive rather than pivotable?
I'll let you know what/if I hear back.
For a pivotal trial there are several criteria that have to be met, but I don't know them off the top of my head.
I have a link at home to a website that explains such terms well, but... it's at home and I'm not. I'll post it later tonight.
Pivotal has to do with things like a trial has to have a control arm, be double blinded, etc...
Ruengies - I sold some today based on Gfp's concerns (thanks for your additional DD Gfp), I'm actually fairly comfortable with the trial side of it, it's the financing that has me concerned.
I'm smart enough to know how much I don't know when it comes to shrewd hedge funds and financing deals, and I'm wondering now if some aspect of this financing will actually keep CLSC from popping nearly as much as I was thinking it would if the trials were successful.
Since this is a "toxic" financing, will it somehow be in Cornell's "interests" to keep a lid on CLSC if the trials are successful?
I asked Cobalis and got an answer. I wish I understood it.
I sent an email to Cobalis asking the following:
Why was it necessary to run twin Phase III trials of PreHistin instead of a single additional Phase III? From reviewing documents Cobalis submitted to the SEC, it appears the first Phase III was deficient in some way -- only be considered "supportive" of approval -- and couldn't qualify as being one of the two Phase IIIs required for FDA approval.
Steve Hecht replied:
Need two trials that the FDA deems pivotable. The first trial, in the Company's view, would probably have been deemed supportive.
Do you know what distinguishes one from the other and why it matters?
Ruengies, The easiest way to get the SEC filings is over on Yahoo Finance. Type in CSLC.OB for a quote and on the left side about halfway down you'll see SEC Filings. They have summaries of all the filings, plus the full filings. The summary is sufficient to get the basic facts. I went back to last Summer. Cornell came into the picture around year end.
Gfp, Can you point me to the specific SEC filing you mentioned?
First of all, thank you for taking the time to share that info and your concerns.
You might still benefit from CLSC with MUCH less risk. All it requires is a little vigilance and staying somewhat liquid. If you simply keep a close watch on the company's web page and Yahoo page, you may have a chance to jump in before the tide rises.
I did a little research into the minute-by-minute trading after the Phase 2 and while I don't have the information at my fingertips -- and it probably wouldn't matter if I did, because we can't count on history to exactly repeat itself -- there was a delayed reaction on the day the results were announced.
I believe it was you who mentioned the delay after the recent Stoll CC before the price jumped. I think the same will happen here. I'm sort of counting on it; I have the cash waiting to double my holdings.
I'm going to go read up on floorless toxic financing, Cornell, and try to find that SEC information, and may have more thoughts/questions later. Thanks again.
Reungies, Concerning Cobalis, I've only just started following them, but after reading through their SEC filings it looks like the reason they had to do the twin Phase 3s (instead of just a single additional 2nd Phase 3) was because for some reason the first Phase 3 was deficient in some way and couldn't qualify as being one of the two Phase 3s required for approval. They don't really explain why, only saying that the first Phase 3 could only be considered "supportive" of approval. Therefore they still needed to do two complete Phase 3s, which they decided to run concurrently. Presumably if the first Phase 3 had been fully up to the FDA's requirements (design-wise and/or results-wise), there would have only been one additional Phase 3 required.
Anyway, it may possibly have been that the design of that trial was at fault, though that's just a guess. The trial had a 4 arm design, with two of the arms perhaps not providing the type of data one would ideally want. Arm #2 (placebo for 3 weeks, drug for 3 weeks), and arm #4 (placebo for 1 week, drug for 5 weeks). Those arms were eliminated in the twin Phase 3 trial designs. It's possible that inclusion of those somewhat "bogus" arms might have messed up the trial statistically enough to preclude it from qualifying as one of the Phase 3s worthy of supporting an FDA approval. This is just my guess though.
Anyway, the other two arms of that trial showed good results - arm #1 (6 weeks on placebo), arm #3 (6 weeks on drug), and those arms are the only two arms used in the twin Phase 3s design. But as I said, perhaps in the first Phase 3 those arms weren't considered sufficiently large enough due to the inclusion of the other arms #2 and #4 in the trial. The later twin Phase 3s wisely used only those two arms (6 weeks on placebo, and 6 weeks on drug).
The upshot of all this is that basing statistical expectations for the twin Phase 3 on a possibly flawed earlier Phase 3 adds some risk to the investment equation. Maybe not that much risk (?), but then I'm not an expert on trial design or statistical analysis, so I can't say with any assurance either way. The twin Phase 3 results may turn out fine in the end, but when combined with the toxic financing hanging over the company, I was feeling queasy and decided to take a pass. BTW, to date I've never stayed invested in a stock through a binary event, so you should consider that fact when evaluating what I've said (ie - I'm a wimp when it comes to binary events generally). If the floorless convertible factor wasn't present for Cobalis, I might have stayed the course through the event. I guess it really just comes down to one's own risk tolerance. I actually still think the odds of favorable twin Phase 3 results seem reasonably good, but if they aren't then the toxic financing present will quickly make things very ugly.
Every investor's situation is different though. I made a good amount on a Dendreon trade several weeks ago, and was eager to roll the dice again, so I jumped into Cobalis based on minimal DD, but then digging deeper I chickened out. Questions about the first Phase 3 aside, it's generally a good idea to stay away from companies with floorless toxic financing present. Cornell is a very sharp vulture outfit, and having them around puts the Cobalis story out of my level of competence as an amateur investor. That's just me though, and other investors may weigh their own tolerance for risk differently.
Exelixis (3-07) - Four Conviction Buys for Our Age of Uncertainty
Monday March 19, 5:20 am ET
>>> Travis Johnson submits: I've been spending a little time looking at Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS - News) lately (nothing new to report, I haven't bought shares... but I would really like to see a buying opportunity in GS), and as such I keep seeing the news about its "Conviction Buy" and "Conviction Sell" listings.
I kind of like that terminology - so I'm stealing it.
Here's my Conviction Buy List for our current period of uncertainty. These are the companies I want to buy additional shares of near these prices, regardless of what happens to the broader market. They each have something special that sets them apart and provides significant opportunity for growth, and I think they're all reasonably or bargain priced today.
1. Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes (NYSE: GOL - News)
GOL is a great story. This company trades at a PE of 19, forward PE of 10, and grows at well over 20% (significantly more in past quarters). This is the Brazilian discount airline, and in addition to cutting fares to build ridership, it's also cutting costs and increasing efficiency to build profits. Not unlike Southwest (NYSE: LUV - News) and RyanAir (NasdaqGS: RYAAY), who it models, Gol consistently pushes to bring fares down in order to build a market. It is taking market share from the somewhat more bloated (and larger) business airline TAM S.A. (NYSE: TAM - News) in its home country, and has helped to push the severely bloated flagship airline Varig into bankruptcy and near irrelevancy now, and it's slowly expanding with short-haul international flights across South America.
I have bought shares well above today's prices in the past, and I may well buy more soon. Prices are currently depressed because the rapid growth of civilian air travel (thanks to Gol and others) has put a severe strain on the air traffic system, a strain that was exacerbated when the crash of a Gol plane (not its fault) last year brought blame on the controllers, who in turn did what they could to paralyze the system. I expect that to work itself out over the next year or two, as Brazil's government knows they have to allow civilian aviation to grow. They don't have a good highway system or train system, this is the way their citizens need to travel if they want to bring the 20th century to all Brazilians. When they tell you not to invest in an airline, they're not talking about Gol.
You can see all my past notes on Gol here.
2. American Science and Engineering (NasdaqGM: ASEI)
Regardless of what you think about politics or defense spending, I think it's a certainty that dramatically increased spending on security is likely worldwide. ASEI plays into that, with technological leadership in scanning products that include huge gantry scanners for cargo containers and trucks, mobile scanners in vans, package scanners for building security or shippers, and personal scanners for airports.
It uses patented backscatter x-rays to provide a much better view than conventional x-ray scanners and better illuminate contraband, weapons, or other hidden items in trucks, packages, cars, or on people. Big potential drivers of revenue in the near future is its large project for nuclear material scanning at ports, the buildout of its omniview gantry scanners (only in use at a couple ports so far) to scan containers, and continued very strong sales of its flagship product, the Z-Backscatter Van, including a ruggedized version that appears to be in strong demand from the military even before it has been designed.
Even with these tailwinds, and no real correlation to the overall economy, the shares trade at a very small premium to the market (PE of around 20). The earnings are lumpy due to big contract sales that aren't always timed as management would like, but I think any weakness (and I consider these prices near $50 to be fairly weak) is a great opportunity for me to buy more.
You can see all my past notes on ASEI here.
3. Cemex (NYSE: CX - News)
This world leader in cement, aggregate and concrete is somewhat reliant on the U.S. market, including housing, which I think has left prices below where they would otherwise be. But of bigger import are commercial construction and road construction, both of which I think are likely to be very significant. The company has shown that over the years it can be much more efficient, using technology, than any other business in its field, and that it can make acquisitions that are very accretive in fairly short order because of its ability to drive efficiency higher - the most recent of which, Ready Mix Concrete, nearly doubled its business.
The bid for Rinker that has recently been in the news, which may or may not go through because Cemex doesn't appear to be willing to raise its bid, is not a big concern for me. I think it'll do very well if it picks up this company, though it will increase its U.S. market exposure, but I also think it should continue to perform very well if it doesn't. It just revised its current guidance to offer a guess that it'll increase EBITDA a little bit this year on lower operating earnings and higher sales, and it's seeing consistent sales growth across all of its big non-U.S. markets (including Mexico, Spain, and the UK).
I'd like to see Cemex get more of a foothold in Asia, something it failed to do with its attempted takeover of Semen Gresik in Indonesia due to government interference, but I think its dominant position in North and South America and parts of Europe is very positive. Concerns about the U.S. housing sector have the forward PE down to about 8, which makes me interested in picking up more. I own shares that I picked up with an average cost of about $30, so I have already bought near these levels, though not recently.
You can see all my past notes on Cemex here.
4. Exelixis (NasdaqGS: EXEL)
Finally, Exelixis - the little biotech that could. This small biotech with expertise in cancer targeting has a ratio of new drugs in clinical development to market cap that I don't think you'll find in many other places. It currently has seven drugs in the clinic in various early-stage trials, and it plans to file INDs for three drugs a year to keep the clinic stocked with potential - all for a well-capitalized little company with a market cap just under a billion dollars. Shares have taken 10-20% swings up and down as I've held it over the past couple years, as minor news is released about its various lead candidates, but there has been no particularly big news yet (it hasn't dropped a program recently, or had a drug approved), which means the price fluctuates with guesses about its future.
If you like to bet with solid odds, I think that starting with a strong and deep pipeline, from a company with a highly respected discovery program (it gets partnership deals with many in big pharma), and with innovative financing programs to help pay for its expensive clinical trials, gives better odds than most other biotechs. Many small biotechs rise and fall, dramatically, on the results of a single drug. That shouldn't happen with Exelixis, so I continue to think that any depression in the shares is a chance to maybe pick up a bit more. We're right about in the middle of the 52-week range right here, and I've bought both above and below this price in the past. Management has in their sights the development of a leading biotech company that can rival Genentech (NYSE: DNA - News) and Amgen (NasdaqGS: AMGN). That's obviously a hugely ambitious goal, but it's building a pipeline that some of the larger biotechs probably already look at with envy.
You can see all my previous notes on EXEL here.
Of course, I have no special insight into any of these companies and I have no idea whether they'll move up or down in the coming months - but I think that GOL, EXEL, and ASEI should trade on their own excellent business prospects, with very little care whether the CPI is at a certain level or the U.S. consumer goes broke. CX is a bit more cyclical, but has such a wide global footprint and trades at such a reasonable price that I'm still interested. Over the next five to ten years, these are some of the companies I think I'd like to see as major parts of my portfolio. <<<
MGI Pharma (3-07) - Can MGI Pharma Overcome Weak Aloxi Sales?
Wednesday March 21, 6:04 am ET
>>> Anthony Payne submits: The stock level of MGI Pharma (NasdaqGS: MOGN), a company that we have followed for a number of years, has been primarily supported by the value of its lead product, Aloxi. Aloxi is indicated for chemo induced nausea and vomiting. However, slowing sales predicted for this product (MOGN refused to provide guidance for 2007 sales of Aloxi medication due to changes in the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting market caused by the introduction of the generic competitors in Q4 2006) and competition for its blood based cancer therapy, Dacogen, has dampened investor interest in MOGN.
As a result of these factors, the stock has been essentially flat for a number of months. The stock plunged after the company failed to meet expectations when it released Q2 earnings in July 2006. The stock has subsequently returned to original levels of approximately $21. We believe that the concern over near-term Aloxi sales is now priced into stock.
FDA submission of Aloxi for post operative nausea and vomiting [PONV] is expected in 2007 after positive results were announced in 2006. Reflecting this new use, additional revenue growth is expected for Aloxi in 2008. In 2004 and 2005 MOGN acquired or licensed a number of products in addition to Dacogen mentioned above. The first commercial shipment of Dacogen was in May 2006, and 2007 could be the first full year of sales for this product, licensed from SuperGen. Saforis, a drug for oral mucositis, a common side effect of chemotherapy and radiation therapy, characterized by painful ulcerations, received an approvable letter in 2006. MOGN is investigating the way forward for this drug as the FDA requested a further Phase III trial.
On, Tuesday March 20, 2007, the Company announced positive results from its Phase III randomized, double-blind, multi-center trial of Aquavan Injection for sedation of patients undergoing bronchoscopy. The trial successfully met its primary endpoint of sedation success as well as all secondary endpoints.
Results of the trial also indicate that the safety profile of Aquavan was similar to the safety profile of the control. MOGN plans to submit the Aquavan NDA to the FDA early in the third quarter of 2007. Assuming approval, which appears likely, the drug could be on the market late 2008 or early 2009.
According to the company there are more than 40 million procedures per year in the U.S. that require moderate sedation, leading us to believe that Aquavan could be a significant source of revenue for MOGN. With the stock having stabilized to current levels after the market’s overly optimistic expectations concerning Aloxi sales, we believe it is now poised for good upward movement in 2007 and 2008 from a base of around $21.
This movement will be based on three major factors: the number of NDA submissions in 2007, expectation of FDA approvals in 2008, and becoming cash flow positive in 2007. MOGN has announced that it expects the following events in 2007: Aloxi PONV supplementary NDA, Aloxi oral capsule supplementary NDA, pivotal phase 3 Dacogen AML program initiation, submission of the supplementary NDA for Dacogen alternative dosing regimen, and submission of the Aquavan NDA. <<<
Teva (3-07): Making a Foray into Biogenerics?
Thursday March 22, 6:12 am ET
>>> Shlomo Greenberg submits: Six months ago, I received two interesting articles on developments in the generics sector. Not the one with which we are all familiar from the activity of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NasdaqGS: TEVA), but the generic biotechnology sector which many view as the medical industry's new, mega niche.
One of the articles I received was taken from CNN Money.com entitled "Missing the 20 billion Bio-generic boom," and was written by its staff writer Aaron Smith. The other was taken from the "Boston Globe." The CNN article opened with the sentence, " A huge new industry - biogenerics - is waiting to be born," and then went on to say that the companies leading the entry into this field are Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NYSE: BRL - News), and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NasdaqGS: TEVA).
The article in the "Boston Globe" talked about a lawsuit that was filed against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a matter relating to generic biotechnology. Steven Heuser, the "Boston Globe" economic affairs correspondent, said that although it will take some time until patients in the U.S. get biotechnological drugs at generic prices, the process is already in full swing.
The development of the generic biotechnology niche is not a simple process and certainly not an easy one. This generic industry has enemies that wield tremendous power, from leading companies such as Amgen Inc. (NasdaqGS: AMGN), Genentech Inc. (NYSE: DNA - News) and others that are unwilling to surrender their gold mine, to authorities that are in no rush to promote the issue because of the lobbying by companies like these, as well as the fact that this process is difficult and extremely expensive.
Last summer Novartis AG's (NYSE: NVS - News) Sandoz division filed a lawsuit against the FDA in the District Court for the District of Columbia for what it described as feet dragging for more than two years on a biotechnology drug called OmniTrope, which serves as a substitute for human hormone growth. The judge hearing the case, Ricardo Urbina, sent a scathing letter to the FDA in which he demanded an immediate explanation to the court and Sandoz. But the problems didn't begin with this lawsuit. As early as 1984, when the biotechnology industry was still in its infancy, the then Congressman Henry Waxman (Dem, California) introduced a law that paved the way for the registration of generic drugs in this field. Last summer, 22 years later, the same congressman announced that he would be redrafting the law to make it clearer and stricter, since, as he put it, "there is no pathway for approving low-cost competing versions of drugs, even after patents have expired," which would be of benefit to the public.
In his article on CNN Money, Aaron Smith claims that the bio-pharmacological generic industry is in its nine month of pregnancy, and he wonders when will it be time and who will be the midwife. The biotechnological industry is, as it happens, now 30 years old. One of the pioneers of this industry was Genentech which was founded in 1975 and floated in 1982. It was followed in 1980 by Amgen, which over time, became the Pfizer of the biotechnology industry. Europe and Japan started out even earlier than the US, with companies like Novartis, Serono and others entering the field as far back as the late 1960s.
To be perfectly honest, after studying the issue, I found it extremely difficult to determine exactly which is the leading biotech company today. Novartis, for example, which has sales of around $37 billion, is active in all fields. Its sales of traditional generic drugs are believed to be more or less the same as those of Teva, meaning around $9 billion. What proportion of this is pharmacological products and what is biotechnology products is unclear to me. Amgen, which has sales totaling $15 billion and Genentech, whose sales total $10 billion, sell nothing but biotechnology products. But one cannot ignore companies such as Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ - News), and GlaxoSmithKline plc (NYSE: GSK - News), two of the world's largest medical companies, which are also active in the biotechnology niche.
In his article, Smith quoted WR Hambrecht analyst Andrew Forman who claimed that Teva is already capable of producing biogenerics overseas. "Investors are being incredibly myopic if they can't recognize the potential for Teva's biogeneric market in the U.S.," he said, adding that by 2010 some $20 billion worth of biogenerics will begin to become available. Smith added that Barr could be a competitor to Teva, especially if it went ahead with the acquisition of Croatian biotechnology company, Pliva (which it eventually did).
I have always believed (and I have said as much in my columns in recent years), that the two most serious contenders in the new and expanding field are Teva and Novartis, although Teva has considerable advantages that put it ahead of all the others. In keeping with a practice set down by chairman Eli Hurvitz, a practice which outgoing CEO Israel Makov continued vigorously, Teva operates on the basis of long-term strategies, and since the turn of the century, it has devoted an increasing amount of resources to this field. It started with the acquisition of Californian company, Sicor.
Teva does not make a public fanfare about it, but I have no doubt that not only is it one of the driving forces promoting the issue with the FDA and legislators in the U.S., but it is also working on the assumption that the field is set to be thrown open in the near future. The acquisition of Ivax could, perhaps, also be part of this strategy, since Teva is the company with the most experience in regular generics, and it is a company that is well connected with knowledge sources. Moreover, it has proven R&D capabilities, and it has an experienced marketing network for its generic product lines. It is because of all this that I believe that Teva will make the transition to biotechnology generics much faster than all its competitors.
Does all this constitute a reason to go out and buy Teva shares? Maybe. It is certainly no reason to sell them, but it could perhaps be a bit too early to buy on the basis of this, given that the timeline for the transition is not yet clear. The only thing that concerns me is still the uneasy feeling that I have had about the replacement of Israel Makov with Shlomo Yanai. I find it difficult to fathom out what's happening there, and I very much hope that both Hurvitz and Makov will help the new company CEO and that the entire management will give him its backing, otherwise my entire theory will go down the tube. <<<
PDL BioPharma (3-07) : Third Point Raises Stake, Requests Four Seats on Board
Thursday March 22, 12:36 pm ET
>>> Lon Juricic submits: In an amended 13D filing on PDL BioPharma Inc. (NasdaqGS: PDLI), Dan Loeb's Third Point LLC disclosed an 8.8% stake (10.1 million shares) in the company. This is up from the 7.5% stake (8.6 million shares) in the original 13D filing.
Loeb also disclosed a new letter to the company's CEO, requesting four candidates be added to the Company's Board of Directors. Loeb also stated that he had been in discussions with a prominent consulting firm and that he would like the Board to retain that firm to review corporate and research and development spending. Loeb demanded, in the transmission, a definitive response from the CEO and the PDLI board, by the close of business on Thursday, March 22nd, as to whether they have agreed to add the four to the Board. <<<
PDL BioPharma (3-07) - What Does Third Point See in PDL Biopharma?
Friday March 23, 6:00 am ET
>>> Paul Simenauer submits: PDL Biopharma, Inc. (NasdaqGS: PDLI) is a biotech company that has squandered cash on needless acqusitions and undisciplined R&D spending, depressing its stock price. On the upside, however, according to Third Point's filing, the company gets hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties from Genentech's (NYSE: DNA - News) Avastin and Herceptin. Specialty pharmaceutical revenues should approximate $200M in 2007 and the Company has other valuable assets: an exciting, albeit slowly-progressing, product pipeline; undisclosed royalties that extend beyond 2014; approximately $430M in net operating loss carry-forwards; real estate and other assets that can be monetized; and a valuable antibody technology platform that should continue to generate new compounds over time.
On March 5th, Third Point, LLC purchased 8.6 million shares in PDL Biopharma. The intent of this transaction is explained in Item 4 of the 13-D as follows:
On March 5, 2007, the Management Company sent a letter to Mark McDade, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and to the Board of Directors of the Company, expressing disappointment and concern over the Company's high rate of spending and, in the view of the Management Company, the Company's significant underperformance. In the letter, the Management Company urges that the Company cut costs and not pursue additional acquisitions. The Management Company communicated its belief that pipeline development and cash flow generation are not mutually exclusive and that, accordingly, the Company should reduce its spending to focus on essential product development and research. The Management Company has offered to work with management to streamline the Company's cost structure and asset base as soon as possible, in an effort to allow the cash generating ability and value of the Company to be developed and made apparent to shareholders. (Third Point LLC 13-D PDLI)
The letter in the exhibit to this 13-D filing explains why Loeb thinks the shares are undervalued. Third Point feels that the share performance of the company was "particularly troubling" as PDLI has received approximately $400M of royalty revenues over the time period from January 1, 2004 to present (Third Point LLC 13-D PDLI).
Concerningly, the Biotech Index , BTK, has gained 50% over this holding period, while PDLI shares have remained flat. With good fundamentals in the industry, and strong royalty revenues, one must question why the stock hasn't performed. Loeb highlights this in the following paragraph in his letter:
The past three years should have been a golden era for PDLI's shareholders: Genentech's successful development of both Avastin and Herceptin, from which PDLI earns royalties based on its antibody humanization patents, enabled royalty revenues to grow from $52.7M in FY'03 to $184M in FY'06. To review the facts, in February 2004 Avastin was approved for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer.
Subsequently, in March and April 2005 respectively, Avastin was shown to extend survival in first-line non-small cell lung cancer and to improve progression-free survival in first-line metastatic breast cancer. Then, on April 25, 2005, Genetench announced that Herceptin had demonstrated an improvement in disease-free survival in the adjuvant setting for early-stage breast cancer patients. Unfortunately, instead of channeling this royalty stream into earnings generation and expeditious product development, you made what we consider to be an ill-conceived purchase of ESP Pharma for $500M to gain access to products Cardene IV, Retavase and Busulfex. (Third Point LLC 13-D PDLI)
The undervaluation also stems from PDLI management squandering cash. Loeb states that PDLI made "what we consider to be an ill-conceived purchase of ESP Pharma for $500M to gain access to products Cardene IV, Retavase and Busulfex" (Third Point LLC 13-D PDLI). This acquisition was foolish as Cardene, "which represents close to 60% of the combined $165M revenue stream from the three products", will go generic in 2009 (Third Point LLC 13-D PDLI).
Loeb is calling for a cost cutting plan, believing that PDLI "could significantly close the value gap by taking several simple steps," by focusing on "streamlining the cost structure and asset base" at PDLI as soon as practicable (Third Point LLC 13-D PDLI). Loeb also feels that "with some cost-cutting, PDLI will be able to earn $1.00 per share in 2008 and to increase that to $1.50 per share in 2009," while also conducting "PIII trials for Nuvion, develops Daclizumab with BIIB for multiple sclerosis, develops M200 with BIIB for numerous cancers, partners Ularitide, partners Daclizumab for asthma, develops HuLuc63 for multiple myeloma and advances the early stage pipeline" Third Point LLC 13-D PDLI).
Loeb also instructs PDLI's management to not partner Ularitide in exchange for yet another specialty pharmaceutical product, but instead enhance shareholder value by accepting an upfront cash payment. Loeb believes that PDLI "should sell its ESP Pharma assets to a specialty pharmaceutical company and focus PDLI on its core strength of biotechnology product development" (Third Point LLC 13-D PDLI). However Loeb reiterated that he does not feel that the company should sell itself or change management as other frustrated shareholders have called for at this time, and wants to work with management to achieve positive results.
The Bottom Line: Currently, PDLI's shares trade for 20.00. With a forward P/E of 39.68, according to Third Point's estimates of earnings of $1.00 and $1.50 per share in 2008 and 2009 respectively, the stock could be worth $39.68-$59.92. <<<
Bio-Generics (3-07) - Will Biological Drugs Go Generic?
>>> A bill in Congress could let generic drugmakers manufacture these pricey meds. But biotechs like Amgen claim they're too complex for others to make safely
by John Carey
In the fight to tame health-care costs, generic drugs provide a rare success story. These copies of brand-name medicines now account for 60% of all U.S. prescriptions. They shaved tens of billions of dollars off the nation's $213 billion drug bill in 2006.
But this remedy has a serious limitation: Generics are allowed only for traditional, chemical compounds whose patents have expired. You can't get them for complex biological drugs such as hormones or antibodies used in cancer treatments. Some of the world's most potent and popular medicines fall into this biotech basket, and existing federal laws prevent them from going generic.
While that's good news for biotech companies, whose drugs enjoy staggering monopoly prices, it's agony for patients and their insurers. A year's worth of Genzyme's (DNA) Cerezyme, for a rare ailment called Gaucher's disease, can top $200,000. Genentech's cancer drug Avastin costs as much as $100,000 per year. That places a huge burden on companies who cover the treatments in their health plans, and on consumers with high co-pays. "It's our single fastest-growing category of health costs," observes Sidney Banwart, human-services vice-president at equipment maker Caterpillar (CAT). "The trend is simply not sustainable."
Safety Concerns
To patients, insurers, generic drugmakers, and companies like Caterpillar, the obvious answer is to open the floodgates to generic biologics. These groups have put their weight behind a bill introduced in the Senate by Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and in the House by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). It asks the Food & Drug Administration to establish a new process for reviewing and approving such treatments.
Even some traditional biotech and pharmaceutical companies have signed on, attracted by the fact that key patents on first-generation versions of the world's most successful biotech product have already expired. That drug is erythropoietin (Epo), an $11 billion per year worldwide anemia treatment sold by Amgen (AMGN) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ). "Billions of dollars are at stake," says Dr. James Bianco, chief executive officer of drugmaker Cell Therapeutics, which would like to get into the generic-biologic business.
What's holding the floodgates shut, for the moment, is a set of concerns about patient safety. Companies such as Amgen and Genentech would be hit hardest by the bill, and they make a plausible case that biological medicines are too complex to mimic. Competitors would be "unable to make copies that are the same," says Walter Moore, Genentech's vice-president of government affairs. Even a relatively simple biologic drug like blood-thinner Lovenox, extracted from pigs, contains over 100 individual molecules.
Same Old Story?
One false step in manufacturing, and patients can get very sick, as Johnson & Johnson learned producing Epo under a license from Amgen. It made a small change to its manufacturing process, which involves growing the medicine in cells from the ovaries of Chinese hamsters, and introduced a stabilizer ingredient that was thought to be safe. But the stabilizer interacted with the rubber stopper on each vial, creating substances that caused the body's immune system to attack the production of blood cells. Scores of patients were hit with this severe side-effect.
Opponents of the new drug bills argue similar lapses are certain to occur if there's a wave of generic biotech products, and that a lot more people are likely to suffer.
Many experts believe such fears are overblown. Before the first generics law was passed in 1984, "We heard the same kind of stories of woe and terror," says George Barrett, CEO of Teva North America (TEVA), a maker of generic and brand-name drugs. He and many others believe it's inevitable that Congress will pass a bio-generics bill—not least because of cost concerns.
America's tab for biological drugs was about $30 billion last year. But with more than 400 new biotech medicines in clinical trials, the cost is expected to jump to $90 billion by 2009 and keep climbing. "This is throwing nitroglycerin on the fire of health-care costs," says Consumers Union analyst William Vaughan. "We've got to get an answer to this."
An Air Bag for Biotech
Any new law, however, will take generic biologics only so far. First, it would take several years after the bill is passed for the FDA to issue regulations. Then, because of safety concerns, the agency is expected to require some clinical trials before approving generic competitors, slowing their entry to the market. And it's unlikely that the copies will automatically be substituted for brand-name drugs, the way today's generics are. Instead, they will be seen just as another choice.
Such developments will be "like an air bag to protect the biotech industry," says Ira Loss, senior health analyst at Washington Analysis, an investment-research firm. "They may get a broken arm, but it won't have to be amputated." This gradual solution will also mean that generic biologics won't have a huge, immediate impact on health-care costs. An analysis by Avalere Health pegs the estimated savings for the federal government at $3.6 billion in the first 10 years after a bill passes, with equal or greater savings in the private sector. Further out, though, the savings would rise substantially.
However that shakes out, the measure can't come too soon for Kathy Ramert, 54, a single mom in Tucson, Ariz., with multiple sclerosis. Even with health insurance, the accountant pays $822 a month for her medicine. "This is what's keeping me going," she says. "Any savings would be a huge help." <<<
Genzyme (3-07) - Cashing in on 'orphans'
Pharmaceutical companies like Genzyme reap huge profits off treatments for obscure diseases.
>>> By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer
March 15 2007: 9:48 AM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Some of the most successful blockbuster drugs in the world treat diseases that most people have never heard of.
They're called orphan drugs, and the government doles out big tax breaks to companies that deliver them. Even without the tax incentives, plenty of biotechs have found ways to profit big off drugs for rare diseases.
How do they do it? By charging gobs of money.
Consider Genzyme (Charts), one of the more prolific producers of orphan drugs, also known as "orphans." The Cambridge, Mass.-based biotech has three on the market, including a $1 billion-a-year treatment for a debilitating, hereditary disease called Gaucher.
Cerezyme, Genzyme's Gaucher drug, is one of the world's most expensive drugs. An annual supply can cost $200,000. Of the estimated 100,000 Gaucher patients worldwide, 5,000 take Cerezyme, according to company spokesman Dan Quinn.
"Genzyme charges a higher price per patient because patients need the drug and there's no other enzyme replacement therapy out there [that's] approved," said Biren Amin, analyst for Stanford Financial Group.
Genzyme isn't the only company to strike it rich off orphans.
Novartis and Amgen have also excelled at this business. Novartis (up $0.00 to $56.50, Charts) sells Gleevec, a treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia that (along with the drug Glivec) totaled $2.5 billion in 2006 sales. Amgen (down $0.10 to $60.59, Charts) has Epogen, which started out as an orphan but is now used to treat anemia. With $2.5 billion in sales last year, Epogen is now one of the world's top-selling drugs.
At first glance, a blockbuster drug that treats a rare disease seems to defy logic. Some of the best-selling medications, after all, have been treatments for the most common diseases where demand and public awareness are highest.
For instance, the top-selling drug of all time is Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering statin from Pfizer (up $0.00 to $24.86, Charts) with nearly $13 billion in 2006 sales. Merck's (up $0.00 to $43.27, Charts) fast-growing Zetia/Vytorin cholesterol franchise, meanwhile, had nearly $4 billion in 2006 sales, a 60 percent leap from the year before.
Why, then, invest years and untold millions in betting on treatments that, if successful, relatively few patients will ever need? It isn't just because the IRS allows orphan drugmakers to write off up to 50 percent of the cost of clinical trials. It's also because approved treatments command premium prices which quickly add up even if only a small portion of an orphan disease's victims buy them.
In addition to Cerezyme, Genzyme sells two more orphan treatments. One is Fabrazyme, a medication for a disease similar to Gaucher that's known as Fabry. The other is Myozyme, a drug for Pompe disease, a debilitating and often fatal neuromuscular disorder. Like with Cerezyme, costs for these medications can run to $200,000 a year.
But the high cost of orphan drugs have angered pharmaceutical industry critics, who accuse companies like Genzyme of profiteering.
Shiv Kapoor, analyst for Montgomery & Co., said any criticisms of Genzyme are misplaced. But for Genzyme and its three orphan drugs, patients suffering from Gaucher, Fabry, and Pompe would have "nowhere to go," he said.
What's more, Kapoor estimates that Genzyme spent nearly $4 billion on research and development over the last nine years on orphan drugs. The company's 30 percent profit margin, he added, is "similar to other biotechs."
Genzyme hasn't raised the price of Cerezyme since it was approved more than a decade ago, said Kapoor. "If Genzyme was unscrupulous and really wanted to milk these drugs, they would be taking a 15 to 20 percent price increase."
Genzyme spokesman Dan Quinn says that anyone who needs Cerezyme gets the drug, even if he or she is uninsured.
"We work to try to find [insurance] coverage for patients," said Quinn. "But for patients who are not able to get insurance coverage, we do provide treatment free of charge."
Quinn said that policy applies to all three of the orphan drugs.
Aaron Reames, analyst for A.G. Edwards, said that Genzyme's practice of providing the drug for everyone in need is one reason why its orphans costso much.
Only competition from generic drug makers is likely to drive down the price of orphan drugs, analysts say. But in the case of Cerezyme, that won't happen until the drug's patent expires in 2013. And since there isn't a FDA regulatory system in place for generic version of biogenerics, it might take longer than that for a viable rival to come to market.
The lack of competition is one reason why medications like Cerezyme are called orphan drugs in the first place. It also means that orphans will continue to be cash cows for their developers, at least in the short term.
"There will be competitors [to orphan drugs], but most of the competition will probably come from biological generics," said Kapoor of Montgomery. "That's a ways off so I don't expect anything to change in the near term."
<<<
Cortex (3-07) - Reports Fourth Quarter and Year End Operating Results
Thursday March 15, 8:30 am ET
>>> IRVINE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMEX: COR - News) reported a net loss of $3,462,000, or $0.10 per share for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 compared with a net loss of $3,739,000, or $0.11 per share for the corresponding prior year period. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, Cortex reported a net loss of $16,055,000, or $0.47 per share compared to a net loss of $11,606,000, or $0.36 per share for the corresponding prior year period.
Results for the quarterly periods reflect the timing of clinical expenses, including amounts recorded for Cortex's Phase IIa clinical study in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD") during the quarter ended December 31, 2005. For the annual periods, increased operating expenses in 2006 include non-cash stock compensation charges and amounts related to addressing the earlier clinical hold on Cortex's AMPAKINE® CX717 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").
As required, Cortex adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 123® -- "Share-Based Payment" ("SFAS 123R"), as of January 1, 2006. Under SFAS 123®, expenses for grants of employee stock options are recorded in the financial statements based on their estimated fair values. Compared to the prior year, Cortex's total non-cash stock compensation charges increased by $3,063,000 for the year ended December 31, 2006. These stock compensation charges have no impact on Cortex's available cash or working capital.
Increased operating expenses during 2006 also reflect amounts for toxicology studies requested by the FDA related to the earlier clinical hold on CX717. These additional unplanned costs represent more than $3 million of Cortex's total research and development expenses.
As reported earlier, the FDA released the clinical hold on CX717 in early October 2006, subject to specified dose limitations. Those limitations meant that Cortex could not proceed with further clinical development of CX717 as a treatment for ADHD. Cortex initiated three-month toxicology trials in rats and monkeys in order to obtain additional data. In February 2007, Cortex announced that the histopathological changes previously reported for CX717 occurred postmortem in the animal tissue. When similar tissue was rapidly removed from the animals and placed in an appropriate buffered medium, the tissue showed no signs of any histophathological changes and was physiologically normal. However, the same tissue subsequently exposed to the fixative solution rapidly began showing histopathological changes.
Cortex plans to submit the related results from these studies to the FDA in mid-March 2007 in order to request that the current dose range limitations on CX717 be raised to allow Cortex to initiate further clinical studies in ADHD. In early March 2007, Cortex submitted a letter to the FDA requesting a meeting to discuss the filing of an IND to conduct a Phase IIb study using CX717 and notified the agency that the data supporting this discussion will be filed by the end of March. The decision regarding the adequacy of the data to allow Cortex to proceed will be made by the FDA.
Decreased revenues during the 2006 periods reflect the winding down of the research collaboration with the Company's partner, Servier. As earlier announced, Cortex notified Servier of its intent to end the research collaboration effective early December 2006.
Cortex's cash and marketable securities amounted to $9,449,000 at December 31, 2006. In January 2007, Cortex announced that it had received gross proceeds of approximately $5,600,000 from a registered direct offering of its common stock and warrants.
As reported earlier this month, Cortex has added Dr. Leslie Street as its Head of Medicinal Chemistry. Dr. Street was hired to replace Dr. Gary Rogers, the Senior Vice President of Pharmaceutical Research, who announced that he will retire at the end of March 2007, after which time he will serve as a consultant to the Company. In connection with his employment, Dr. Street was granted options to purchase an aggregate of 100,000 shares of Cortex common stock with an exercise price equal to the closing sale price of the common stock as reported on the AMEX on March 5, 2007.
Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Cortex, located in Irvine, California, is a neuroscience company focused on novel drug therapies for neurological and psychiatric disorders. The Company is pioneering a class of proprietary pharmaceuticals called AMPAKINE compounds, which act to increase the strength of signals at connections between brain cells. The loss of these connections is thought to be responsible for memory and behavior problems in Alzheimer's disease. Many psychiatric diseases, including schizophrenia, occur as a result of imbalances in the brain's neurotransmitter system. These imbalances may be improved by using the AMPAKINE technology. Cortex has alliances with N.V. Organon for the treatment of schizophrenia and depression and with Les Laboratoires Servier for the development of AMPAKINE compounds to treat the neurodegenerative effects associated with aging and disease. In December, 2006 Cortex terminated the research collaboration with Servier enabling Cortex to pursue the use of AMPAKINE compounds in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. However, Servier retained the right to select up to three compounds from the collaboration for its further development for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. Cortex may receive additional milestones and royalties if either Organon or Servier is successful in developing and commercializing AMPAKINE compounds.
Forward-Looking Statement
Note -- This press release contains forward-looking statements concerning the Company's research and development activities. The success of such activities depends on a number of factors, including the risks that the Company's proposed products may at any time be found to be unsafe or ineffective for any or all of their proposed indications; that competitors may challenge or design around the Company's patents or develop competing technologies; and that preclinical or clinical studies may at any point be suspended or take substantially longer than anticipated to complete. As discussed in the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings, the Company's proposed products will require additional research, lengthy and costly preclinical and clinical testing and regulatory approval. AMPAKINE compounds are investigational drugs and have not been approved for the treatment of any disease.
Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Condensed Statements of Operations
(in thousands, except per share data)
Three months ended Fiscal year ended
December 31, December 31,
----------------------- ---------------------
2006 2005 2006 2005
----------- ----------- ---------- ----------
(Unaudited) (Unaudited)
Revenues $ 313 $ 606 $ 1,177 $ 2,577
Operating expenses (A):
Research and
development 2,899 3,409 13,262 11,361
General and
administrative 1,012 1,097 4,616 3,376
----------- ----------- ---------- ----------
Total operating
expenses 3,911 4,506 17,878 14,737
----------- ----------- ---------- ----------
Loss from operations (3,598) (3,900) (16,701) (12,160)
Interest income, net 136 161 646 637
Change in fair value of
common stock warrants -- -- -- (83)
----------- ----------- ---------- ----------
Net loss $ (3,462) $ (3,739) $ (16,055) $ (11,606)
=========== =========== ========== ==========
Loss per share:
Basic and diluted $ (0.10) $ (0.11) $ (0.47) $ (0.36)
Shares used in computing
per share amounts
Basic and diluted 34,915 32,702 34,349 32,665
(A) Operating expenses
include the following
non-cash stock
compensation charges:
Research and
development $ 424 $ 49 $ 1,997 $ 183
General and
administrative 201 -- 1,234 (15)
----------- ----------- ---------- ----------
$ 625 $ 49 $ 3,231 $ 168
=========== =========== ========== ==========
Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Condensed Balance Sheets
(in thousands)
December 31, December 31,
2006 2005
------------ ------------
Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,650 $ 2,063
Marketable securities 7,799 15,198
Other current assets 525 256
------------ ------------
9,974 17,517
Furniture, equipment and leasehold
improvements, net 428 439
Other 33 33
------------ ------------
Total assets $10,435 $17,989
============ ============
Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity:
Accounts payable and accrued expenses $ 2,056 $ 2,681
Unearned revenue -- current -- 126
Deferred rent liability 58 50
Stockholders' equity 8,321 15,132
------------ ------------
Total liabilities and stockholders'
equity $10,435 $ 17,989
============ ============
MORE INFORMATION AT WWW.CORTEXPHARM.COM<<<
Becton Dickinson (3-07) - BD Honored as One of 'America's Most Admired Companies' in FORTUNE Magazine's Annual Rankings
Friday March 9, 2:05 pm ET
>>> Earns Top Industry Rankings in Four Key Areas - Social Responsibility, Quality of Management, Financial Soundness and Quality of Products and Services
FRANKLIN LAKES, N.J., March 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- BD (Becton, Dickinson and Company) (NYSE: BDX - News) was recognized by FORTUNE magazine as one of "America's Most Admired Companies," taking top honors in the Medical Products and Equipment industry for social responsibility, quality of management, financial soundness and quality of products and services.
Overall, BD ranked second in its industry, which represents the Company's strongest showing in this prestigious report on corporate reputations.
To develop the rankings, FORTUNE and its survey partner, Hay Group, asked executives, directors and analysts to rate companies in their respective industries on eight key criteria. A total of 616 companies in 68 industries were surveyed during the fourth quarter of 2006.
"BD is proud to be recognized again by its peers and competitors as one of the most admired companies in America," said Edward J. Ludwig, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. "This honor reflects the passion and commitment of our 27,000 associates worldwide who help provide great performance for our customers and shareholders, make great contributions to society and make BD a great place to work. Each day, they truly help BD pursue its purpose of helping all people live healthy lives."
BD works to address unmet global healthcare needs through sustainable business efforts and development of pioneering technologies as well as partnerships with philanthropic, government and nongovernmental organizations.
About BD
BD, a leading global medical technology company that manufactures and sells medical devices, instrument systems and reagents, is dedicated to improving people's health throughout the world. BD is focused on improving drug therapy, enhancing the quality and speed of diagnosing infectious diseases, and advancing research and discovery of new drugs and vaccines. The Company's capabilities are instrumental in combating many of the world's most pressing diseases. Founded in 1897 and headquartered in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, BD employs approximately 27,000 people in approximately 50 countries throughout the world. The Company serves healthcare institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general public. For more information, please visit http://www.bd.com. <<<
Sigma-Aldrich (3-07) Receives Merck & Co., Inc. 2006 Sector Operational Award
Thursday March 8, 4:00 pm ET
>>> ST. LOUIS, March 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Sigma-Aldrich, (Nasdaq: SIAL - News), a leading $1.8 billion Life Science and High Technology company, is pleased to announce it has been named a recipient of Merck & Co., Inc.'s prestigious 2006 Sector Operational Award. Sigma-Aldrich was chosen for its outstanding sourcing services, helping Merck realize process efficiencies as well as significant savings.
"Sigma-Aldrich is honored to receive the Sector Operational Award in recognition of our quality services and products," said Gilles Cottier, President of Research Essentials and Sigma-Aldrich's Executive Sponsor for Merck. "As a global life science and high technology leader, we are committed to excellent customer service and quality while continually striving to meet or exceed the highest standards in the industry."
Jai Nagarkatti, CEO of Sigma-Aldrich, added: "As a Merck supplier for laboratory chemicals and solvents, Sigma-Aldrich is pleased to continue to strengthen our partnership, providing excellent service to accelerate our customer's success."
In early 2006, Sigma-Aldrich was selected to provide a comprehensive suite of organic raw materials and sourcing services through its fine chemicals business unit (SAFC) that met Merck's needs. To date, utilization of this service has increased by 50%. As a Merck preferred supplier, Sigma-Aldrich has also been utilized for critical pre-clinical and clinical drug deliveries as well as associated analytical testing services.
About Sigma-Aldrich: Sigma-Aldrich is a leading Life Science and High Technology company. Its biochemical and organic chemical products and kits are used in scientific and genomic research, biotechnology, pharmaceutical development, the diagnosis of disease and as key components in pharmaceutical and other high technology manufacturing. The Company has customers in life science companies, university and government institutions, hospitals, and in industry. Over one million scientists and technologists use its products. Sigma-Aldrich operates in 35 countries and has 7,300 employees providing excellent service worldwide. Sigma-Aldrich is committed to Accelerating Customer Success through Leadership in Life Science, High Technology and Service. For more information about Sigma-Aldrich, please visit its award-winning Web site at sigma-aldrich.com. <<<
Vertex (3-07) -
>>> Feuerstein's Biotech Mailbag
By Adam Feuerstein
Senior Writer
3/10/2007 10:20 AM EST
URL: http://www.thestreet.com/newsanalysis/biotech/10343484.html
F.F. writes in about Vertex Pharmaceuticals (VRTX) : "I wish you can give me an idea where Vertex is heading. I understand that Wall Street is betting on it to be next cure for hepatitis C."
That's right. Investor focus on Vertex is lasered in on telaprevir, the company's experimental hepatitis C drug in a rigorous phase II clinical trial program. I've written about Vertex and telaprevir before.
As an investor, pay attention to the upcoming meeting of the European Association of the Study of Liver Disease, taking place April 11-15. This is the first big hepatitis C meeting of the year, and Vertex should (or at least, it's hoped it will) have new data to present on telaprevir. Research abstracts will be posted at the EASL Web site after April 11, but they don't contain anything new on telaprevir. For that, we wait for the meeting to begin.
Nervousness and uncertainty about telaprevir, especially in front of this EASL meeting, are behind most of the recent weakness in Vertex shares. The biggest worry: drug-related rash that might cause patients to drop off telaprevir treatment. <<<
Sepracor (3-07) - No Sleep for Sepracor
>>> By Robert Steyer
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
3/9/2007 11:27 AM EST
URL: http://www.thestreet.com/newsanalysis/pharmaceuticals/10342931.html
Though Sepracor (SEPR) recently achieved a full-year operating profit for the first time since its 1984 founding, there's hardly time to celebrate, because the next challenge is just around the corner.
Next month, its insomnia drug Lunesta will have to compete not only with brand-name foes but also with generic options, because market leader Ambien from Sanofi-Aventis (SNY) is about to lose its U.S. patent protection.
Already, there are signs that Lunesta's U.S. prescription growth has decelerated, raising questions about whether Sepracor's prediction for a 21% sales increase this year is achievable. Lunesta produced 47% of Sepracor's $1.2 billion in revenue in 2006.
Brand-name pressure continues from Ambien CR, the successor to Ambien. Controled-release Ambien CR, approved in September 2005, has surpassed Lunesta in U.S. market share.
"It could be a tough year for Lunesta with both of those converging forces," says Julie Stralow of the independent financial research firm Morningstar.
Several analysts, pointing to lower-than-expected fourth-quarter Lunesta sales, fret about generic Ambien despite Sepracor's recent announcement that it was increasing its marketing for Lunesta.
Sepracor's 2007 guidance "does not adequately reflect the potential sales disruption to Lunesta" when generic Ambien arrives, says David Amsellem of Friedman Billings Ramsey.
He told clients last month that Sepracor's $685 million sales forecast for this year "appears aggressive." Amsellem has a market-perform rating on the stock. His firm seeks to do business with companies covered in research reports.
Although Lunesta's price was raised in November, that isn't enough to convince S.G. Cowen & Co. that the drug's growth can hit Sepracor's targets this year.
Generic Ambien "will provide a stiff competitive headwind," says analyst Ian Sanderson, who in January cut his rating to underperform from neutral. Sanderson's firm seeks to do business with companies covered in research reports.
However, most investment bankers remain bullish on Sepracor. The number of buy recommendations is still nearly double the combined total of hold and sell ratings.
Some analysts say generic Ambien may not do as much damage as others fear, partly because Sepracor plans to start selling Lunesta overseas. It will seek European Union approval later this year, targeting a 2008 launch. Selling Lunesta in Japan is at least three years away.
Unlike its go-it-alone U.S. marketing strategy, Sepracor will look for partners in foreign markets.
The rest of the bullish scenario around Sepracor involves continued growth of the asthma drug Xopenex, which produced 50% of corporate revenue last year. The other key to growth is Brovana, a treatment for lung diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, which goes on sale in the U.S. in the second quarter.
Still, it's hard to ignore Lunesta's numbers among prescription drugs for insomnia. A recent analysis by A.G. Edwards shows that Lunesta's total U.S. prescriptions -- new orders and refills -- took off after the drug was launched in April 2005. But market-share percentage has been relatively stable, in the low teens, since late that same year.
Using data from the medical-data research firm IMS Health, A.G. Edwards notes that Ambien CR overtook Lunesta in June 2006. By early February, Lunesta had a 13.5% market share, vs. Ambien CR's 18.4% and original Ambien's 44.6%.
Sonata from King Pharmaceuticals (KG) and Rozerem from Japan's Takeda remain minor players. Total prescriptions for the entire drug class rose 9% for the 12 months ending in early February.
Aaron Reames of A.G. Edwards says that one crucial factor for Lunesta's future success has nothing to do with the merits of competing insomnia drugs. He believes Lunesta's sales will improve once Sanofi-Aventis secures Food and Drug Administration approval for the weight-loss drug Acomplia. The FDA is now expected to act in late July on the drug.
Reames postulates that the FDA's approval of Acomplia will prompt Sanofi-Aventis to divert many sales representatives from marketing Ambien CR, giving Lunesta's marketers less brand-name competition.
"There's a finite number" of sales representatives, Reames says. "Sanofi-Aventis has got to switch as many patients as possible to Ambien CR" before April 21 when original Ambien goes off patent.
Reames, who has a buy rating on Sepracor, also thinks insurers' behavior could help Lunesta even when Ambien goes generic. Managed care firms usually have three tiers of drug coverage, with Tier I representing the lowest, out-of-pocket cost for consumers and Tier III representing the highest.
Generic drugs are usually Tier I drugs. Preferred brand-name drugs are in Tier II, and nonpreferred drugs are in Tier III in insurers' formularies.
Conventional wisdom says Lunesta will be hurt when insurers move Ambien to Tier I as a generic. But Reames says many managed care firms have had brand-name Ambien in Tier I "for a long time," trying to condition consumers to stick with generic Ambien. To Reames, that means Lunesta's sales won't get such a jolt when Ambien goes off patent.
Meanwhile, Sepracor continues to fight for the best placement in managed-care formularies, leading some analysts to say that weaker-than-expected fourth-quarter Lunesta sales were due to dealmaking with insurers.
Sepracor "has aggressively contracted with managed care [firms] to keep or move Lunesta into the Tier II position ahead of Ambien CR and, importantly, have lower co-pays for patients," says Marc Goodman of Credit Suisse in a recent report to clients. The firm has a banking relationship with Sepracor.
Goodman, who has an outperform rating, says Sepracor has raised Lunesta's Tier II coverage to 37%, from 10% in late 2005, and cut its Tier III designations to 43%, from 74%. <<<
Followers
|
2
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
334
|
Created
|
01/12/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |