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.
Re Thalo analogs, here is a link to
a contract available on internet :
http://www.freeedgar.com/EdgarConstruct/Data/1005150/02-705/exh10-1.txt
Go to the Whereases clauses on page 2.(The rest of it is good if you're having trouble sleeping.)There is referred to, a separate contract between Childrens Hospital and ENMD called "New Analog Agreement," I think. I'll try to dig that up if available. Note that the linked agreement expressly excludes Thalidomide analogs from the deal except as a mixed patent right. there were other agreements later. Amazing that Dr. Holoday had such confidence in ES and AS back then that he was willing to give all the Thal stuff up for peanuts. Of course I guess BMY was still thought to be in the picture as to financial support for ES then. Ah, hindsight.
Monday Angiogenesis Forum at ASCO:
http://www.asco.org/ac/1,1003,_12-002556-00_18-008899,00.asp
Top billing to Avastin, but what the heck, they deserve it--for now.
SU11248, with AI properties,
showed benefit:
http://www.asco.org/ac/1,1003,_12-002636-00_18-0034-00_19-0033475,00.asp
Thalidomide and Multiple myeloma
overall survival benefit not yet clear if I
understand this correctly:
http://www.asco.org/ac/1,1003,_12-002636-00_18-0034-00_19-0033929,00.asp
Two reported trials of VEGFR inhibitors, BA 43-9006, and SU 11248, show some encouraging results, proof of (AI) principle; at least I read them that way. Here is link to the BAY 43-9006 ASCO abstract:
http://www.asco.org/ac/1,1003,_12-002636-00_18-0034-00_19-0032211,00.asp
Good to know:
In a welcoming message to the ASCO convention,appearing on its website, Dr. Johnson, the president, stated in part:
"Molecularly targeted therapies, molecular diagnostics, genomics, and proteomics are no longer topics for future consideration—they are critical components of our daily decision-making processes, and they have provided the inspiration for this year’s Meeting theme, “Advancing the Science of Clinical Oncology.”
Educational and scientific sessions that highlight cross-cutting themes will enable attendees to learn about important research in other specialties. A new special series of Presidential Science Forums, to be held tomorrow and on Monday and Tuesday, focuses on proteomics and genomics, the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway in cancer, and angiogenesis. ...."
ASCO webcasts available ?
Here is the annual meeting website:
http://www.asco.org/ac/1,1003,_12-002948-00_18-0038906,00.asp
There is a symposium on angiogenesis Monday. If anybody has time might glean some good info for us by subscribing to the webcasts. I haven't tried, but i don't think you have to be an ASCO member to subscribe.
Docaaron, I am still curious as to why Allergan didn't seem to try anything at all clinically before terminating the relationship.
Someone still trying ES and AS
Doesn't ENMD have a little royalty potential left on this use?
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/050505/086092.html
Was there ever any news at all as to
Allergan's work with Panzem, if any, before they terminated ?
I never saw anything . Reason 4 thanks for posting the 10-Q.
Whups, duplicate, sorry, eom
What ifs:
As Jento observes and cautions, the phase 1b trial is not ostensibly to test efficacy. Yet I think there will be disappointment if some kind of efficacy--not necessarily per the historical definitions but by the enlightened standards suggested by Dr. F. for anti-angiogenesis --- such as stable disease a la Chimney's cousin-- is not observed.
Dr. Sidor, head of research for ENMD quoted by Forbes relative to the trial, stated:
"Valuable safety, pharmacokinetic and dosing information will be obtained from this study, which will enable us to move aggressively into the next stages of clinical testing focusing on specific tumor types and combinations with approved treatments."
Say there are two ovarian cancer patients in the 1b study and stabilization or regression occurs in both; but no such efficacy is shown in other tumor types. Can they and if so shouldn't they then go to a phase 2 or perhaps directly to a phase 3 trial with only ovarian cancer patients ?
What ifs:
As Jento observes and cautions, the phase 1b trial is not ostensibly to test efficacy. Yet I think there will be disappointment if some kind of efficacy--not necessarily per the historical definitions but by the enlightened standards suggested by Dr. F. for anti-angiogenesis --- such as stable disease a la Chimney's cousin-- is not observed.
Dr. Sidor, head of research for ENMD quoted by Forbes relative to the trial, stated:
"Valuable safety, pharmacokinetic and dosing information will be obtained from this study, which will enable us to move aggressively into the next stages of clinical testing focusing on specific tumor types and combinations with approved treatments."
Say there are two ovarian cancer patients in the 1b study and stabilization or regression occurs in both; but no such efficacy is shown in other tumor types. Can they and if so shouldn't they then go to a phase 2 or perhaps directly to a phase 3 trial with only ovarian cancer patients ?
Utrecht U docs still looking at ES :
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v92/n4/abs/6602385a.html
C_peptide Thank You. EOM
George, query re dosage signs:
Could you explain what these shorthand symbols mean, e.g.:
10(-6)M, 10(12)M; etc? Thanks!
Chimney, I could not answer that either in terms of scrip units or dollars. In dollars, I would hope it would equal Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra combined. When the moment arrives .
If it could get approved.
Of course you know there is a drug that has already done that for one patient and one type of cancer. Just great. Do you knoe if she is receiving the NCD ? I'm not sure i'd want to change if the results continue that good ! (Or if i were her doc Id want her to.) Thanks for your post,it keeps our spirits up as well!
Do I understand correctly that a "naked short" rather than someone less than 5' tall with no clothes is a short seller who has not yet borrowed the stock he/she/it sells ? If that is correct, what generally follows from a substantial "naked short" position ?
Did FDA special office for oncology drug development ever get a director? Looks like they were still mulling it over as of last month; the program was established last July. Government warp speed.
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/03/04.php
Some pre-clinical work in Germany with 2 ME on brain cancer cells; use link and then scroll about 3/4 down for abstract/report.
http://www.brainlife.org/update/year2005/v02n16.htm
What is Smad7 ?
Sounds like some kind of special ops unit. And in one sense, maybe it is:
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/15/14773
Well Dr. Steve, you were very timely with predicting the money see the $10.5 mmCELG put in per warrant excercise today. getting kind of watery around here though.
Form 8-K re Celgene tubulin deal filed today, see corp.website.
I don't know what to read into it regarding ENMD view on Panzem.
I hope we're not just dancing to Celgene's tune.
OT "Silver Bullet" (or silver bull _ _ _ _)
http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/OXF/WOXFF318/
Gamma knife radiation ?
Here is a massive dissertation from Germany that is way beyond me but from which C Peptide, Jento and our other scientifically UNchallenged might find interesting:
http://opus-ho.uni-stuttgart.de/hop/volltexte/2003/30/pdf/Diss-Lambert.pdf
While the author's experiments seem to substantiate that 2ME
does cause apoptosis, on page 75 per the scrolldown thing, and page 63 of the author's page, it is stated:
"****p53 is not generally needed for the cytotoxic effect of 2ME." So there.
However, if I were a biggie and wanted to tie up 2ME,I'd try to buy both ENMD and Introgen--but I'd buy ENMD first.
Georgejjl -
Would this patent assigned to Itrogen infringe on ours--er, ENMD's??
http://www.biospace.com/news_story.cfm?StoryID=10310520&full=1
I am not asking for some kind of legal opinion but I know you have looked researched the ENMD patents and just wondered what you thought . It doesn't seem to take much to get a patent on these endogenous things, just a teeny different restatement. Could ENMD now trump their patent by stating Panzem NCD will do that same thing only with better bioavailability ? Oh and thanks for the AACR abstracts. Wouldn't be surprised if their release had something to do with the stock price increase and volume.
Conference on Ocular Angiogenesis Mar. 25 in Cambridge.
http://www.ibclifesciences.com/cod/oinfo_lower.asp?pid=USC3107&pname=body
Nothing from ENMD; Doc from Allergan on program but discussing their own discovery. I think Sherris Pharma Partners which seems to be a partial sponsor has a 2ME analog under development so may be we were not invited.
George thanks but this appears of concern.. might the result be even more adverse with the new form ? I understand the conclusion but not how they got there exactly and will look forward to elaboration by our knowledgeable posters here. Maybe "a mouse is not a man" (or more pertinently here, a woman) is a principle that will work in our favor this time.
Query re Celgene:
Can any one provide further detail on their Phase III trial results beyond the Company pr, which I can't interpret beyond the fact that it lengthened to disease progression to some extent? I suppose the fact that they threw the thing open to the placebo patients indicates they see great possibilities. I don't think this was any part of what ENMD assigned to CELG. Would be nice if Panzem could get an early result like that after it goes to Phase III if it does.
The good news to me in the March Exec. summary(thanks George) is that "Panzem NCD is now being used in Entremed's clinical trials in advanced cancer patients which commenced in January 2005." So even though the trials may still be enrolling, we can infer that it's started going in patients.
docaaron-
what was the "major magazine" whose article is supposed to have killed ENMD ? Is this that you posted supposed to be a summary of a more in-depth article in the Toronto Star? We all agree that the out-dated paradigm treating the term "stable disease " as equivalent to failure has in the past been harmful to AI's but I can't bring mysaelf to blame ENMD's difficulties (or those of endostatin) on a magazine article.
chimney 1915
Good news and thanks for sharing.Has she been offered the new stuff? Of course if I were in her place I'm not sure I'd take it if offered, as she is doing so well as it is--I would just wait and see how the present trials go.
OT sort of-
Anybody want to interpret this ?
http://www.thoracic.org.au/abs2005/tp029-144quanl.pdf
Seems to me it's saying that a 2 ME analogue does a better job than vanilla 2ME as a potential for treatment of a particular kind of asthma, but I hesitate to attempt interpretation.
George re your last paragraph (re why no continuous infusion of ES/AS combo)I would hate to think that potential demand/supply problems would hold this up. With the apparent enormous expense of ES, if because of delivery-bioavailablity problems it was statistically unsuccessful as a single agent,
I can see where one would not anticipate that the addition of AS would help... I can't remember whether there was any attempt to deliver either drug by continuous infusion, since ES had to be frozen till used, maybe there was a problem with this. Anyway some have contiued to think about delivery of the combo. Maybe we could put UPS on the problem.. See;
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/64/5/1781
Dhawk, thanks for sharing this.
While I will need a medical/biology dictionary to guide me through it, I will look forward to this trip through nanoworld.
ENMD has made no announcement of any
such licensing that I know of. That's an interesting discovery you make-- a company incorporated in january and ready to make a presentation of in vitro and in vivo activity of a 2ME analog in March-- if not ENMD from whom did they "in-license" ? Please keep us posted.
haod, what fundamentally (non-technical or related to the PP)would there be to warrant a sell-off at this time. A guy specializing in mergers and deal stuff like that was just hired and got options at buy price at over $3.00. This does not sound like a company (or a new executive) that thinks things are down the tube. BTW are the Florida tomatoes going to improve soon ? Haven't found a good one in a long while now. Regards.
Smad ? Gad !
Don't get mad, just a tad, not too bad, better than rad.
NHL thanks for the tip on using the
zoom in thingy on these posters,as to isolating particular language. Seems obvious now but I never figured it out before.
As with your starfish story, you at least helped one.
Re endostatin and pancreatic cancer
Here is a thoughtful and understandable (Hey, they speak English over there!)article from the British Journal of Cancer :
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/bjc/journal/v92/n1/full/6602180a.html
One comment, probably obvious to the docs and researchers here, but that I had not thought about as bearing on the mice vs. man results, even when human xenografts are used, is:
<It is known that different xenograft models are regulated by different pathways, and that the necessary absence of a fully functional immune system in the host will also make these models somewhat artificial....>
OT-Merck and fosamax
Here is an example of the struggle courts have with
applying the arcane principles of patent law to drugs.
http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1005.pdf
The dissenting opinion follows the majority opinion.
While the FDA apparently can give a relatively short period of exclusivity for a new drug even if a patent on it is subsequently judged invalid for 'obviousness ' or whatever as occurred here, that really does not address the irony that a guy can invent a can opener in his garage for $ 2.39, immediately patent it and be protected commercially for 20 years or whatever a patent runs now, but a drug company can spend millions to develop a product,millions and years to clinically test it after securing a patent and still have only a few years after that to exclusively market it, all the while having to fight off would be competitors in patent court. I think it's going to get worse as biotics, proteomics, etc. come further to the fore.It's a big guy's game.