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.
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.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/01/06/dollar_drugs_and_advertising.php
>>January 6, 2008
Dollar, Drugs, and Advertising
Posted by Derek
Well, it's the first full working week of the year, so let's dive right into some controversy. There's an article on PloS Medicine on the amount that the drug industry spends on marketing. They at least try to avoid the problem of mixed administrative and marketing expenses, but the authors come up higher than the other estimates that have been arrived at. That's because they take the varying figures from the two major sources and decide to take the larger figure every time the two disagree.
The final tally? About $57.5 billion spent in 2004. Most of that is in detailing to physicians and the cost of free samples. Direct-to-consumer ads, although they get a lot of attention and collect a lot of flak, account for only 7% of the total. The authors lose no opportunity to point out that this figure is not only larger than the industry's own statements, but is just shy of twice the estimated industrial R&D expenditures for that year. And, of course:
". . .These numbers clearly show how promotion predominates over R&D in the pharmaceutical industry, contrary to the industry's claim. . .it confirms the public image of a marketing-driven industry and provides an important argument to petition in favor of transforming the workings of the industry in the direction of more research and less promotion."
Well, we do spend a lot on marketing, that's for sure. US pharmaceutical sales in 2004 were about $235 billion. If these latest figures are correct, then promotion was about 24% of sales. I don't know how that compares to other industries, but it wouldn't surprise me if it ran high. Several things lead to that - the drug industry is quite fragmented, for one thing, with even the largest companies having a fairly small market share. And patent terms mean that the bulk of the profits on new drugs have to be earned back relatively quickly before they go generic. The distribution channels in the prescription drug business lead to a concentration on the gatekeepers (physicians) as well.
But the authors of this paper have missed an important concept. As I've pointed out here before, the idea of spending money on marketing is that it brings in more money in return. If it didn't, why bother? Marketing campaigns are supposed to pay for themselves, and more besides. That doesn't always work, of course - Prizer sure didn't make back the money spent promoting Exubera - but the failures are made up for by the successes, or at least they'd better be.
So it's not like we have this huge pile of money (X) and choose to divide it up so that we spend 0.65X buying ads and 0.35X on research. Those ads are responsible for the size of the pile in the first place. If they didn't exist, X would be smaller. If the advertising is working, that whole 0.65X is being paid for by increased sales: why on earth would you spend more on advertising than you make in return for it, year after year? And some of that 0.35X comes from those increased sales, too: why on earth would you spend that huge amount on advertising and get only that same amount back in revenues, year after year?
No, as far as I can see, most of the "why don't you spend some of that money on research" question is founded on a misconception. It breaks down when you look at where "that money" comes from. I freely admit that it's not an aesthetically pleasing state of affairs. And maybe that's the root of the problem.
My industry would apparently prefer not to put it in such crude terms, but drug research involves money, and plenty of it. Advertising brings in more money, which is why it exists. The nature of our industry probably allows a higher profitable level of advertising, which is why we do so much of it. My industry may, in the long run, be doing itself no favors by avoiding this topic and encouraging the saintly-white-coated-researcher picture instead. We do help sick people, and we are glad of that (and I do have a white lab coat hanging in my lab across the hall). But helping sick people by discovering new drugs takes big piles of cash. That's how the world is.<<
micro
>>If you can't beat them with quality then try to do that by quantity. Quesiton is if you were really into the breast strategy, why bother with large phase II's that take long time to complete? Is breast of interest at all?<<
Of course breast is of interest. It is a very large market.
I think the strategy of doing a lot of ~200 patient P2b's in parallel is that (i) this will tell them the right combination for a P3 with high probably of success and (ii) with that many patients per trial, a strong efficacy signal may well result in accelerated approval prior to a P3.
>>Trial 1 pretends that Gemzar+Taxol regimen is not already approved in the US. Trial 2 pretends that Bevacizumab would be approved in the US. Trial 3 will not lead to a US registrational study as xeloda was approved to use in combo with taxotere, likewise for trial #4. <<
I haven't studied the standards of care in the breast cancer space thoroughly enough to comment intelligently on the above w/o further research. Unlike most of the Nexavar development work, Bayer isn't running the breast cancer program; Onyx is. Of course that's worrying. Also I've talked with the Onyx CMO and found him unimpressive. But supposedly these P2b breast cancer trials were designed in collaboration with some of the top breast cancer specialists in the world.
I hope they didn't screw up.
micro
Well then ... here's another fun chart.
Top selling biologics:
=
micro
=
I can see this chart. Can anyone else?
micro
test
=
O/T >>I don't ahve a singel friend my age who has or wants a house over 3500sq ft.<<
I have a friend who has a 4000 sq ft house and a cousin with a 5000 sq ft house. Both are in the San Diego area and both are upper middle class - definitely not what most would consider 'rich'.
I think this is totally ridiculous. Our house is 'only' 3000 sq ft and my wife wants to downsize because we waste too much money on heating - and that's also in Southern California. I can't even imagine heating a 3000 sq ft house in a place that gets snow in the winter. If you insulate too much you get poisoned by radon and household chemicals.
Between global warming and running out of oil & gas, people with big houses are going to eventually get squeezed.
Of course that may take a few decades ...
There are these companies that come to your house and build closets for you so that you can use the space you have more efficiently. Maybe there is a niche for someone to do that with an entire house. I bet most families could do with half as much space if every square foot was efficiently used. E.g. we have a 'bonus room', one of two living rooms and a dining room that are probably used <1% of the time (i.e. < 14.4 minutes/day). Probably 1000 sq ft right there. Makes little sense. We must be idiots.
micro
>>Living "in the moment' with 4 children living at home in a house built in the twenties, I can assure you the 2000sf is not enough space. it was fine when the kids were in elementary school.
We have just added about 800sf in a master bedroom and family room to our 1980sf 4 bedroom colonial. to be frank, there is still not enough room. when the kids grow up they are bigger, have more stuff, and need more room just to live and entertain.<<
Average car size had been increasing for many years. But as gas prices approached and then exceeded $3/gal, the trend reversed.
After heating costs triple over the next few years, houses may begin to get smaller too ...
There are other trends which may push average house size smaller, including smaller families and increasing costs of building materials, but I think energy is going to be the big one over the next several decades.
micro
>>Millennium to Receive $40 Million Milestone Payment for Achievement of Sales Threshold for Velcade(R) (Bortezomib) for Injection<<
Although it hasn't been announced, I'm fairly sure this is for $1B in ex-U.S. sales of Velcade.
micro
Merck, MK0752 ... dougheuring: Your links don't work.
micro
>>I am an enthusiastic advocate for stem cell research and am on the Board of the Stem Cell Action Network.
So naturally I'm interested in everything having to do with the tiny pluripotent critters, bless their hearts.<<
Sorry I am unable to reply privately (i.e. too cheap to purchase an IHUB membership). Email me at microcapfun@yahoo.com if you follow Geron and want to take part in a 'private' message board.
micro
<<Rat shit: 9 mg>>
IMMEDIATELY sent that to all my friends and relatives. Great nerd humor - thanks Dew.
Time for some Wheaties ...
micro
Preplanned Sales
How many times have you seen somebody on a finance board post that some insider sales mean nothing because they were part of a preplanned (10b5-1) trading plan???
- micro
>>Preplanned Sales: What Do They Show?
Jakks CEO's Move
May Signal Decline
In Firm's Prospects
By ED WELSCH
December 19, 2007; Page C4
In theory, when insiders enter into preplanned stock sales, those transactions should reveal less information about where a company's stock is going. In practice, observers say, the reverse may be true.
The recent preplanned sale of $1.9 million in stock by the chief executive of toy maker Jakks Pacific Inc., for example, sends a warning signal about the company's prospects, according to an analytical tool developed by Insiderscore.com. The last time such a negative signal was recorded, Jakks shares fell by more than a third in three months.
The fourth quarter is particularly important for toy retailers such as Jakks. In October, the company posted a 17% increase in its third-quarter profit and backed its annual revenue forecast of $800 million in net sales. At the time, Jakks Chairman and CEO Jack Friedman said in a statement the company is "well-positioned for the 2007 holiday season."
Mr. Friedman sold shares since then under a plan set up in March to sell as much as 150,000 shares. The plan called for Mr. Friedman's sale of 75,000 shares the week after the company filed its third-quarter report Nov. 8, according to Jakks spokesman Joel Bennett.
Mr. Friedman sold the second 75,000 share tranche on Monday, Mr. Bennett said. However, Mr. Friedman also could have sold the second tranche as late as March 26, 2009, according to a footnote in his insider-sale disclosure form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
"Based on that footnote, it suggests to me that the second sale didn't necessarily need to be transacted," InsiderScore research director Ben Silverman said.
Mr. Bennett said that under Mr. Friedman's plan, the timing was left to the discretion of a broker.
Jakks President Stephen Berman also sold shares recently under an insider-trading plan: 100,000 shares valued at $2.61 million in late October and an additional 70,000 shares valued at $1.8 million in late November.
Together, Mr. Friedman's and Mr. Berman's sales pushed the level of insider-trading-plan selling to its highest since March 2006, when millions of dollars in stock sales preceded a decline triggered by a disappointing earnings report. Jakks shares dropped from a high of $27.21 each on April 13, 2006, to $17.26 a share on June 16, 2006.
"We have at least one instance in the past when the selling reached this above-average point, and was followed by a period when the stock declined significantly," InsiderScore's Mr. Silverman said. "One instance certainly doesn't create a pattern, but certainly I would keep an eye on what's going on here, and wouldn't ignore the sales just because they are under a 10b5-1 [plan]."
So-called 10b5-1 plans, named after the rule that describes them, are designed to allow insiders to buy or sell company shares on schedule in an orderly fashion without having to worry about allegations of improper use of inside information.
In Mr. Friedman's case, Jakks spokesman Mr. Bennett said, the 2006 sales were made under a plan created a year earlier, and weren't linked to the company's 2006 first-quarter earnings report. <<
- Wall Street Journal (abridged)
$1500
Got the check today ... !!
micro
Phase I stats ...
>>Annual round up of all drugs entering Phase I
Small molecules still leading the way into the clinic
By Mike Nagle
Drugs moving into the clinic: 39
Drugs moving into the clinic: 30
Drugs moving into the clinic: 20
Drugs moving into the clinic: 10
Drugs moving into the clinic: 1
News Archives
All news for December 2007
All news for November 2007
20/12/2007 - DrugResearcher.com brings you its annual round up of all the drugs that entered clinical development in 2007.
Although increasing numbers of pharma firms are making noise about boosting their biological pipelines, it seems the more-traditional small molecule approach is still leading the way in terms of numbers of drugs entering first-in-man clinical trials.
Throughout 2007, DrugResearcher.com has been compiling a list of drugs entering Phase I trials. Given that companies tend to announce this type of clinical trial at different stages, those in the list could be there through the acceptance of a Investigational New Drug (IND) application to US regulators at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or perhaps through starting or completing enrolment.
Unfortunately, many companies - especially the pharma heavyweights such as Merck & Co - often don't announce the trials at all and so this list can't claim to be complete. But among those firms that do divulge the movement of drugs through their pipeline, here's what we found out.
More and more pharma firms are decrying the fact that they don't have enough biological drugs and although this market is clearly growing, it still has some way to go before it usurps small molecule drug development as drug developers' technique of choice.
Most popular types of drug entering clinic
Type of drug Number of drugs
Small molecules 135
Of which:
Prodrug 3
Biologic /Biopharma 61
Of which:
Antibody 29
Protein 13
Cell therapy, incl stem cells 6
Gene therapy 4
Other 9
Vaccines 23
Peptides, Antisense and siRNA 18
Undisclosed 15
There are more than twice as many small molecules entering the clinc as biologic drugs. Of those, however, by far the biggest group is antibodies. This covers monoclonal antibodies (MAb), mini-antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates.
So what are all these drugs aiming to treat? It's no real surprise that top of the disease list is cancer. This year the number of drugs that could potentially tackle tumours was double that of any other therapeutic category. Some drugs could also potentially work across multiple indications (number given in brackets below).
Top Indications
Indication Number of drugs
Oncology 88 (6)
Anti-infectives and Vaccines 44 (5)
Central Nervous System 41 (1)
Cardiovascular 26 (1)
Alimentary and Metabolism 23 (1)
Respiratory 9
Ophthalmology 8
Dermatological 6
Musculoskeletal diseases 6
Other 6
Of all the companies in the list, the US biotech Exelixis is leading the way into the clinic with a staggering nine drugs. Touted by industry insiders as the 'new Genentech', the firm has had a mixed year. Many of its drugs are partnered with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the pharma giant has pulled out of co-development of one of those drugs. On the up side, there's plenty more cancer drugs in its pipeline and GSK is still helping them develop at least seven other drugs.
Top Seven Most Productive Firms (not including big pharma)
Company Number of drugs
Exelixis 9
Medarex 5
Array BioPharma 4
Pharmacopeia 4
Enzon Pharmaceuticals 3
Genmab 3
NeuroSearch 3
Amazingly, Exelixis' haul is only 2 less than Pfizer has managed this year.
Although it will come as no surprise to most that most of these drugs have come from companies headquartered in the US. The following table gives a continental breakdown. Naturally there will be a bias on those countries more likely to release the information in English (many Chinese or Japanese pharma firms do not for example).
Most productive pharma regions
Region Number of drugs
North America 176
Of which:
US 161
Canada 15
Europe 61
Of which:
Denmark 14
UK 8
France 6
Austria 5
Germany 5
Israel 5
Sweden 5
Switzerland 4
Ireland 2
Italy 2
Belgium 2
Finland 1
Asia and Australia 17
Of which:
Australia 6
Japan 6
Singapore 2
India 2
China 1
Of the 253 drugs that entered the clinic in 2007, only around one in ten can be expected to make it to market. That's around 25 drugs that started their clinical life this year will eventually be prescribed by doctors. Time to start hedging those bets...
If you would like a free copy of the complete dataset, then just email me with your name, company and job title and I'll send the info right back (also, let me know whether you want an Excel file or an Access database file). Consider it your Christmas present from everyone at DrugResearcher.com. <<
http://www.drugresearcher.com/news/ng.asp?n=82212&m=1DRGD20&c=rgfpzvhzbheyrup
micro
>>If Provenge already showed survival benefit as in 9901 and 9902a, and if the IMPACT interim analysis were to ascertain that by having a p-value that's less than 0.05 who cares if it were bigger than whatever that OBfleming hurdle is, then why would it be ethical to continue to withhold the trial!?<<
There is nothing magical about 0.05. Imagine having 10 interim analyses. If p dips below 0.05 at any of them, do you think it is justified in stopping the trial and declaring it a success? How about the same question with 100 interim analyses? 1000?
If that still doesn't make my point clear, imagine flipping a coin 10 times. If 10 heads comes up in a row, is the coin weighted improperly? What if you repeat the 10 flips in a row experiment 1000 times. If you get 10 heads in a row in any one of those 1000 experiments, is the coin weighted improperly?
The probability of 10 heads in a row with a 'fair' coin is about 1 in 1000 ...
(I know it isn't a perfect analogy because with the coins the experiments are completely independent, unlike the interim analyses. But it's a good enough analogy.)
I find that a lot of people have strange intuition about statistics and probability. A good calculus-based stats class in college is a good cure for that ...
micro
>>That was a surprising announcement to many of us because we felt that DNDN will file a BLA even if the interim look does not meet the stringent interim requirement but beats the standard 0.05 for p value...<<
I argued with racherho on a Yahoo board about that. What is the point of having an SPA-defined interim hurdle if someone can get approval after missing it?? In other words the assumption is that the interim attempt at demonstrating efficacy at the agreed confidence level has FAILED. Why should such failure be rewarded with a successful registration??
micro
>>In a statistical analysis plan testing for efficacy, the fundamental result is that at least one of 3 tests will be positive; superioity, inferiority or equivalence.<<
>>... this result lands in a never never land between equivalent and inferior. That is not supposed to happen in a well designed SAP.<<
No. The result can be inconclusive.
The same can easily occur in a superiority trial. You can guess that Drug A will improve endpoint B by 30% as compared to standard of care, and power the trial accordingly.
The result may be p = 0.2, say.
Drug A may still be have improved endpoint B as compared to SOC. It may have improved endpoint B at a lower level than 30% or even at or above the 30% level, since other powering assumptions may have been incorrect or the statistical fluctuations may simply have gone against you.
In any case, you haven't shown that Drug A has improved endpoint B (at the desired level of statistical significance).
You also haven't shown Drug A is equivalent to SOC (which you did not test) and you haven't shown Drug A is worse than SOC.
The result is inconclusive.
Again, this may occur because your model was poor, or it may simply be you were unlucky.
micro
>>I assume you’re asking about the US market, specifically. It’s about 1/3 treatment-naïve and 2/3 treatment-experienced.<<
Thanks, Dew.
micro
>>Share of U.S. HIV Treatment-Naïve Rx’s<<
Dew,
Do you happen to know the fraction of the HIV market which involves treatment-naive patients?
Given that most treated patients now live for decades but begin to resist at least one of their therapies within a few years, my guess would be that it is well below 50% and shrinking.
micro
>>Hi MCF!
It would be great if you would post a message here when you get your Prize Check!
Will you do that?<<
Sure - but if I forget, please remind me. Hasn't come yet.
micro
A thousand apologies, Matt!
Make that a thousand and five hundred apologies ...
micro
Thanks. I heard from Matt, so presumably the check is soon-to-be in the mail!
micro
$1500 prize???
I don't want to sound overly anxious or ungrateful or anything like that. But emails to The_Original_dpb5 have gone unanswered. Neither woofer or lentinman responded to my post on this board. Nobody has PM'd me.
This isn't some kind of scam, is it??
micro
microcapfun@yahoo.com
>>The coming difficulty is threatening every industry tradition. "I'm talking to you from the 44th floor of an office on Park Avenue," Mr. Cornelius says. "A year from now, I won't be talking to you from the 44th floor because we're going to move downstairs out of these very expensive offices."<<
*sniff*
micro
>>Walldiver -I think Avastin's temporary setback may be one more reason to own ONXX, now that Avastin has vacated the competitive landscape (assuming FDA follows ODAC), there aren't just any new things on the horizon sans cancer vaccines. But sorafenib breast cancer trials are still early. Is there even a p3 trial ongoing?<<
No there isn't a P3 Sorafenib trial ongoing in breast cancer. There are, however, multiple large Phase 2b's starting up (trying out different chemo combos), of a size which would allow for accelerated approval if the results are exceptionally good.
Sorafenib has some possible advantages over Avastin, as I've mentioned before. While Sorafenib also has multiple anti-angiogenic mechanisms of action (VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3 and PDGF), it also hits the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway ... though admittedly the evidence of the latter contributing to clinical efficacy is somewhere between modest and nil. And in terms of AE's, Sorafenib doesn't seem to be quite as nasty as Avastin, as is evidenced by the fact that there has not been serious bleeding problems using Sorafenib on squamous cell NSCLC patients in large Phase 3 lung cancer studies, unlike the case with Avastin. (When those studies were begun, it was thought likely that a protocol change excluding those patients would be necessary, but it didn't happen.)
micro
woofer, lentinman:
I haven't heard back from dpb5 ... How do I go about collecting my Christmas present?
micro
>>This was a cooperative trial, not a company-sponsored trial. It did not have an SPA. Regards, Dew<<
My bad. But still - the trial did have a primary endpoint and it wasn't OS. That should count for something, particularly if it is true that the trial wasn't powered to demonstrate OS.
micro
>>LOL MICROCAPFUN!
You posted the following here about one week ago, and you WON the BIG ENCHILADA!
$1500 !!!<<
Thanks much. A very nice Christmas present indeed.
Now please don't tell me I have to send in a $5000 security deposit before you will mail me out a check ...
;o)
micro
Avastin
>>this trial was not powered for overall survival. it was powered for PFS.
this will be recommended or my name is mud <<
Dr. Mud,
;o
I haven't followed this situation very carefully, but I did notice that the primary endpoint of the trial was PFS, not OS. Given that, how can the FDA move the goalposts - especially with a non-statistically significant increase (i.e. positive trend) in OS as well?
What's the point of having SPA's with agreed-upon primary endpoints, if the FDA can turn around and say, "Yeah, we know you were successful ... but we really wanted more ...".
If the FDA also wanted the company to pass an OS hurdle, they should have demanded co-primary endpoints before the trial started.
micro
>>"antibodies are HOT"
A huge breakthrough in therapeutic Abs would be to make them a lot smaller. I have no idea whether it can be done.<<
http://www.drugresearcher.com/news/ng.asp?id=52078-cancer-drugs-from
It can be done ...
>>Cancer drugs from camel antibodies
12/05/2004 - Researchers in Belgium have developed a new generation of drugs consisting of extremely small antibodies - called nanobodies - that can target tumour cells specifically and seem suitable for oral delivery.
The research team from the Flander Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology (VIB), led by Hilde Revets and Patrick De Baetselier of the Free University of Brussels, say that the small antibodies can overcome the delivery problems associated with current antibody-based therapies, which must be delivered by injection.
"At the moment, 10 [antibody-based] medicines are available to patients. But even though these antibody medicines are a good step in the right direction, there is clearly room for improvement," accordng to the research team.
Because they are large molecules, current antibodies have difficulty penetrating tumours and their complex structure makes large-scale production very difficult and expensive.
In order to cope with these problems, the VIB researchers are using camel antibodies, which are much smaller than human antibodies. And aside from their small size, these nanobodies are very stable, soluble proteins that are much easier and less expensive to produce than conventional antibodies.
Initial results using nanobodies directed against tumours look promising. In experiments conducted on mice, a tumour with a marker protein on its membrane was successfully treated through administration of a nanobody directed against this protein.
The nanobody technology is being taken through to commercialisation by Ablynx, a company established by the VIB and and venture capital firm GIMV in 2001. Ablynx has already developed nanobodies against 16 different therapeutic targets that represent a wide range of diseases in humans. Two of these nanobodies are in preclinical testing and, according to plan, will be ready to be clinically tested next year. <<
micro
>>HEY MICROCAPFUN!
Did you KNOW that you WON the Post #25,000,000 Contest here on IHUB?
$1500!
Congrats to you!
<<
Well I do now - thanks. Gee ... linear extrapolation actually works.
Ummm ... how do I collect?
micro
Nexavar for macular degeneration??
>>Avastin is a biologic approved for metastatic colorectal cancer and nonsmall cell lung cancer. Onyx will have data on its phase three trial of Nexavar for lung cancer in 2008. If Nexavar is approved for that disease, the two could compete, Liang says.
"It's possible Nexavar could supersede Avastin because an oral drug is more convenient to take," he said.
LOOKING AHEAD
Onyx will also have phase three data on Nexavar's effects on metastatic melanoma in 2008.
The company will look for noncancer uses as well, Renton says. One could be wet macular degeneration, which some doctors treat with Avastin.<<
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-21352169.htm
How does having a small molecule drug help in the case of macular degeneration? You don't want to treat MD systemically, do you??
micro
>>If you’re a former BrownCo customer, it is far better to request E*Trade’s regular commission rates rather than the “special” rates for former BrownCo customers. The regular E*Trade commission is a flat fee any number of shares, while the BrownCo rate contains a penny-a-share surcharge for transactions of more than 5,000 shares, which gets very expensive for large-share orders.<<
I rarely trade more than 5,000 shares at a time - not because I can't afford it, but because larger orders cause the bid and ask to run away from me. This 'moving the market' effect and the spread between the bid and ask are the biggest costs of most transactions, not the commission.
micro
>>good post from the yahoo forum. I concur with this post and have witnessed the companys confidence that they will indeed get the patents they seek
Based upon my research, I have been able to determine that VODG has some important patents in the area of the recently announced use of "skin cells" for cell immortalization, etc.<<
Is there a link missing here?
micro
my wag
December 3, 2007
7:40 p.m.
(Is this all that is necessary??)
>>p.s. Do you have any further comments re #msg-24682767 (diminishing returns in drug discovery)?<<
No. I pretty much agree with your comments, except that I'm not convinced Big Pharma downsizing will be confined to SG&A rather than R&D. Somebody posted an article suggesting that Big Pharma could be going the way of Big Chemical which makes some sense. Sure there will always be money going into R&D to discover new drugs, but it may be a much smaller percentage than what we have today.
>>For instance, two of my large holdings (GTCB and MNTA) are companies whose proprietary technology helps society save money by offering existing drugs or slight variations of them at substantially lower costs than would otherwise be possible.<<
I agree with that strategy. Also there are still new 'continents' being explored - such as embryonic stem cells. That may be too early for productive investment at present, but there will be a time ...
micro
Implantable lenses
My wife's father just got one of these - in China. Sounds very impressive. As Dew's article says, this is much better than laser surgery because it corrects the vision close up and far away, not just one or the other.
micro
>>Microcap , Bio guy....
I believe you guys watch the nexavar situation. When onxx hit the $60's I thought it was to expensive, but after doing my own DD on microcaps notes I really agree with his summation. I don't think the sales growth will be a straight line upwards but I do think it's going to entrench itself as the only viable hcc drug for quite awhile.
Then Onxx started selling off and i thought a 10% selloff would be a nice entry point. I entered but the evavator is still going down. Any thoughts.
<<
Yeah. It just means (i) the market still doesn't get how big the liver cancer opportunity is and (ii) general market conditions suck - lots of good stocks have been going down lately.
Don't worry, be happy. No that's not right ...
Don't worry, BE PATIENT!
micro
>>
Novartis, Antisoma Take On Avastin in NSCLC
[The program has been broadened from squamous NSCLC, where Avastin doesn’t compete, to both squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.]<<
As you probably know Dew, Bayer/Onyx is testing Nexavar in both squamous and non-sqamous NSCLC and the results will be available next year.
Since Nexavar (like Avastin) hits anti-angiogenic targets, I think it has a decent shot, even though the Phase I & II evidence is rather weak.
micro
>>Even given the small subgroup and the Halabi nomogram estimated accuracy of 69%, a suggested benefit in median survival of over 20 months is impressive.<<
Check your math, rancherho!
>>IMO, the sometimes expressed theory that only the healthier patients would select docetaxel afer Provenge or GVAX is dubious, especially where Drs. Petrylak and Small both use Halabi as a standard reference.<<
Halabi's nomogram was essentially pre-taxotere.
>>At the end of the study 13 of 34 patients in the radiologic group received subsequent chemotherapy (taxane in 9/13); their median survival was more than 35.2 months (95%CI, 29, 44). The median survival of the non-chemotherapy treated patients was 17.2 months (95% CI, 9, 32).<<
Point made, but note the size of them thar error bars!
>>17.2 months (95% CI, 9, 32).<<
Fold the statistical errors in with the self selection ("dead men don't take chemo") and it would seem the jury is at least not unanimous.
micro