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.
Barry, you're a smart guy, however, please listen to the CC from today. Harvey and company clearly stated that all milestone payments and royalties will be booked as revenue, not earnings. And, if you think about for a minute, that is how you want it. You want to book it as revenue so you can offset expenses against it. If you book it as profit, uncle sam takes 38% of it right off the top.. You want to offset that with expenses before uncle same takes their cut..
BR
Interesting..start the phase 2 trial in the first half of 2011, and stop it before the end of 2011. Interesting..
I guess what worries me the most is Harvey's choice of words when he talks about Ridaforolimus recently. One year ago, he was all full of vigor and energy for Rida, and this energy has slowly progressed lower, to where, for the first time today, he actually used twice the words, "if it passes or fails". He has never expressed himself like that before.. I hold out much hope, in that Merck just ponied up $70 million for the rights..
Have to agree. All the manufacturing, QC, and others should be gone.. The most sad, negative thing, that hopefully, will be the most positive in the future, is there was virtually no one on the CC. Not many firms are covering Ariad.. I think they gave up..
Let's see. place a 30 multiple on Ariad's $1.35 profit for Q2 ..well, I can always dream..
Yes, one and the same.....
Great news from a patient on '534, it REALLY works!:
http://community.lls.org/thread/6775;jsessionid=6FEDCA26EC04A268470F83D24DF8A807
Volume is way, way light today.. We need decisive volume on the upside to mean anything..
I have to admit.. Harvey is really shrewd in his promotion of Dr. Clackson to President of R&D.. I expect that should keep Dr. Clackson anchored to Ariad for at least the next 18 to 24 months. Trust me, he has a price on his head... He is clearly the main asset that leaves Ariad every night when he goes home..
Exactly. If you look at the bench of executives, in all the different identified positions they are in, you would think that Ariad had $200 million in revenue last year. Seriously.. It does stink.. Yet, we are all still here.. Why is that?? I guess we all have "home run itis"....
Why does Ariad still have positions available in manufacturing????
Shouldn't all the people that Ariad hired
for manufacturing over the last 2 years be let go? I mean, I'm sorry, but this part of their business is no longer needed.. In addition, if you look at the org chart, there are way, way too many chiefs..
http://www.ariad.com/wt/tertiarypage/careers_opportunities
Come on everyone, it's Adam Feuerstein's article today that has a mention of Ariad that is driving the stock volume.
Actually: Ridaforolimus is described by investigators as a best-in-class mTOR with predictable MTD and
optimal therapeutic index.
From Barclay's recent report:
Ariad Pharmaceuticals
Upcoming Events
• Final analysis of Ridaforolimus Phase 3 SUCCEED trial in 4Q10
• Ridaforolimus preliminary Phase 2 data in endometrial cancer in 2H10
• Finalize either 45mg or 60mg dose selection for -534 with the new tablet form
• Update on discussions with regulatory agencies (FDA and EMEA) around AP-534 registration trial
• Initiation of -534 pivotal trial in 2H10
Key Laterals - Bristol Myers (Sprycel), Novartis (Gleevec and Tasigna). Chemgenex (Omacetaxine), Merck (partner)
Key Issues
Ridaforolimus opportunity in cancer with partner Merck - Substantial proof-of-concept for mTOR inhibition has been established with
approval for Torisel and Afinitor in RCC. Ridaforolimus is described by investigators as a best-in-class mTOR with predictable MTD and
optimal therapeutic index. Durable clinical benefit response (CBR) of 30% in sarcoma should support SUCCEED success on the final PFS
analysis in 4Q10.
A WAG, I would expect..
It would be a wonderful thing if we could reach $5. Lots of small biotechs are getting creamed. KERX anyone?
biotechhedge, I'll take Merck's $70 million bet anyday over your "shoot from the hip" logic anyday..
Well, if TargeGen Inc is finishing up phase 1 and 2 trials and is worth $75 million up front, and $560 million if approved, we have the starting point for Ariad's '534.. This is absolutely not figured into Ariad's valuation today..
BioTechHedge, if you would take a moment and think, the board would be a better place. FMR (Fidelity) did make the 16 million share purchase for their OWN account (not in mutual funds) a month or two ago.. The additional 4 million shares bought (and REPORTED yesterday, not bought yesterday), is with another Fidelity entity (not FMR).
Actually, taking a different approach, I expect Ridaforolimus will be approved for Sarcoma. You can speculate how the market will value Ariad on that news, and then value Ariad on the value of their other indications...
Pfizer's ALK:
Pfizer Drug Highly Effective Against Lung Cancer
Marilynn Marchione
Drug Discovery & Development - June 09, 2010
CHICAGO (AP) - It's way too soon to declare success, but an experimental drug for lung cancer patients with a certain gene showed extraordinary promise in early testing, doctors reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference.
More than 90 percent of the 82 patients in a study saw their tumors shrink after two months on the drug, Pfizer Inc.'s crizotinib, (crih-ZAH-tin-ib), researchers reported.
Doctors had expected only about 10 percent of these very sick patients to respond to the drug, according to one of the study's leaders, Dr. Yung-Jue Bang of the Seoul National University College of Medicine in South Korea.
These were people with advanced disease, including some whose cancers had spread to the brain. They had already tried an average of three other drugs. Responses to crizotinib have lasted up to 15 months so far, and the drug has been rushed into late-stage testing, Bang said.
Many leading cancer specialists, who normally don't get excited until a drug proves effective in large studies against existing treatments, said the research so far on crizotinib was promising.
"It's early, but I'm impressed by it. It looks extremely effective," said Dr. Roy Herbst, lung cancer chief at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. He has consulted for makers of other lung cancer drugs but not this one.
Dr. Alice Shaw, the Massachusetts General Hospital doctor who is leading a larger study of crizotinib, agreed.
"I don't think there is false hope. The data are so strong," she said.
The drug targets a gene that promotes tumor growth and is found in about 4 percent of lung cancers, especially among younger, non-smokers. This small percentage is still a lot of people: nearly 220,000 new cases of lung cancer are diagnosed each year in the United States alone, and it is the world's top cancer killer.
That means that up to 10,000 people in the U.S. annually could benefit, said Dr. Mark Kris, a lung cancer specialist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who has consulted for Pfizer.
Two other gene-targeted treatments, Tarceva and Iressa, help about 20,000 lung cancer patients annually in the U.S.
"We're chipping away at large numbers of patients," and future gene discoveries should add to the number helped, Herbst said.
The gene targeted by crizotinib was discovered in 2007, Kris noted.
"Once we understand a cancer cell, we can come up with a treatment very quickly," he said.
No show-stopping side effects were seen in the first study - half of patients on crizotinib had diarrhea, nausea or vomiting - but much larger tests are needed to establish safety.
Even more testing is needed to see if the drug is more effective than existing treatments, how long any benefits last, and whether it improves survival - not just shrinks tumors.
Pfizer sponsored the study and has already launched bigger studies to compare crizotinib to current standard treatments. The company hopes to seek federal Food and Drug Administration approval for the drug next year.
The study was presented Saturday at a meeting in Chicago of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Date: June 5, 2010
Source: Associated Press
Is this the Ariad scam?
Pfizer's Crizotinib in ALK-NSCLC; Response Rate "Unprecedented"
see for yourselves:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/723075
Yet, Ariad's claim is that THEIR ALK is much more effective..
Needless to say, this feels Enron-ish to me...
Don, please sort this out!
Today's news in making Tim president of R&D re-solidifies my belief in Ariad. My #1 fear has been Tim leaving. This makes me much more comfortable.
Actually, the approval of Rida for Sarcoma will BE a big event. Mr. Market is pretty smart. There are many individuals on the sidelines that refuse to invest in an oncology company without a product, and are waiting for a go-no go on Rida. They have figured out that approval will open the door to $500 million in royalities, and milestone payments to Ariad. The present value of that cashflow stream is worth much, much more than booking sales. This will sew the seeds in creating an independent, standalone oncology company.
chimrockcapital, you appear to be confused. To compare Ariad's mTOR, with the existing mTORs is an exercise of futility... Let's try this.. Merck just invested $69 million in the Ariad franchise.. I would clearly expect that they did not do this blindly...
Sally Church is one of the best.. From her blog:
http://www.pharmastrategyblog.com/2010/06/two-new-cancer-drugs-approved-cabazitaxel-and-nilotinib.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PharmaStrategyBlog+%28Pharma+Strategy+Blog%29
This does fit what Harvey is talking about.. But, there are a lot of moving parts, and this can go in many directions:
The other Priority approval yesterday was for Novartis' nilotinib (Tasigna) in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) on the basis of higher and earlier response rates versus the current standard of care, imatinib (Gleeevc). Full approval follows later once the survival data is more mature, but the early 12 month data looks interesting with a significant advantage to nilotinib over imatinib. It's still early though, survival curves can do strange things over time and can cross over.
Still, it's a promising start and a good result, especially since the bar was raised very high by imatinib. Prior to imatinib, ten year survival in CML was 10 to 20% at best with high dose interferon, but imatinib raised that dramatically to 90%. The second generation TKIs such as nilotinib and dasatinib (BMS) will thus potentially represent incremental survival improvements to 93 or 94%, to put them in context.
Of course, nilotinib's approval will possibly impact dasatinib (Sprycel) since they have just filed for the same indication, making Priority review more unlikely. The last time that happened to two drugs in the same cancer type was for Erbitux (ImClone) and Avastin (Genentech), who filed a few weeks apart, but in two different indications (newly diagnosed and 3rd line).
If dasatinib does get a Priority review after nilotinib it will set a new precedent, but if it doesn't get Priority review, I wonder if an ODAC will occur given that's usually what happens with standard 12 month review?
What's fascinating about the dasatinib data is that it also demonstrated earlier and deeper responses than imatinib, but the front-line data presented by Drs Kantarjian and Baccarani at ASCO and EHA respectively, did not appear to show any earlier survival benefit at 12 months for dasatinib vs imatinib, unlike nilotinib. I say 'appear' because the curves were very close together and no P value was given, so my assumption is that they weren't significantly different at this stage. That may change over time, but for now, the DASISION data presented by Dr Kantarjian showed a 12 month OS of 97.2% to dasatinib and 98.8% to imatinib, presumably not a significant difference. Deaths in the two arms were 10 and 6 respectively, again favouring imatinib, but not significantly.
Obviously, comparing these curves at 5 years would be a much fairer comparison for overall survival, but for now, the 12 month data is all we have to go on and there are early differences between nilotinib and dasatinib.
It was also interesting to watch the often hyped and inelegant reporting of the data by the media at the Congresses proclaiming superiority. We know that in solid tumours, shrinkage or tumour response does not always lead to an improved survival benefit for the patient. Similarly, in leukemia, we also measure response rates - in this case - complete cytogenetic response (CCyR), major molecular response (MMR) and complete molecular response (CMR), as initial surrogate markers for initial approval, but survival is also critically important for full approval in the US. Interestingly, the early log 4 reduction (CMR) rates seemed to slightly favour nilotinib over imatinib (but not significantly), however none were presented at ASCO or EHA for dasatinib over nilotinib (unless I missed the slides).
Ultimately, ASH will herald the 2-year and 18-month data for nilotinib and dasatinib respectively, which will hopefully be an important milestone on the way to seeing how the mature five year survival data will evolve.
That is exactly what Harvey said. Ariad has the ability and experience to start the '534 trial now, w/o a partner. The further down the line they can take this, the more valuable this makes the '534 franchise when they finally do partner..
This is an outstanding analysis of Ariad's potential:
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/646558-jason-chew/76848-ariad-is-set-for-success
Don, thanks once again for being an unbiased, critical thinker that provides actual factual information to this board.. It appears that some are shooting from the hip, and bringing over their misinformed grudges from Yahoo.
I really like this factual piece of information from the '534 trial:
Out of 12 major cytogenetic responses (MCyR) in patients with chronic phase CML, 11 remain on therapy without progression after an average of almost a year on treatment (327 days).
This kind of evidence should fully supports Harvey's position that the pivotal phase III trial for '534 will begin in the second half of 2010.