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.
That's what I'm saying.
Glad I did a better job explaining myself
GILD/TAF risk
I had a feeling I'll embarrass myself by needing to further explain :)
When posted: "A total failure means a very big hit but I don't think it will go this way", I meant the true hit to Gilead (that will lose a large part of its HIV market share to generics starting in 2018). But in the next post: "My hunch is that the hit GILD's stock will take if TAF fails will not be catastrophic and if I must please you with numbers I would guess 5-10%." I am saying that I think the market will not punish GILD (as it should) because of many reasons already brought up including yours.
DiaPep277 sold to Hyperion Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: HPTX):
http://investors.hyperiontx.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=842174
My hunch is that the hit GILD's stock will take if TAF fails will not be catastrophic and if I must please you with numbers I would guess 5-10%.
I really cannot predict but I think investors are already expecting HIV sales to flatten as Viread goes off patent and are also very excited with HCV sales, so perhaps not going to punish GILD's share strongly (as it should be) if TAF is as good as Viread but not statsig better.
GILD
I'm trying to figure out does GILD have a point claiming their current regimen cost is in line with the old SoC for the biggest patients population in the US? I mean 6 or 12 months treatment of peg-inf+incivek+rbv is expensive too considering SVR and AE as calculated here:
http://hepatitiscnewdrugs.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/costs-for-hepatitis-c-treatment.html
I hope this is not where we are going...
My post was in reply to linhdtu's point that
Understood but if payers know there will be a strong resistance from patients and docs that might hurt them financially as suggested in the analysis, they might not try to force patients back.
Still the same and the new Bydureon dual chamber pen has the same size needle (23 gauge) as well.
Victoza has a smaller needle size.
On your thought experiment:
I would imagine generics might win ground with newly diagnosed patients and those who are on the daily version, if payors will use aggressive force but I find it hard to believe the generic would win converts due to payor pushback. If I were such a patient (on the a 3x weekly version) and I'm better off with it, I would fight in any possible manner including finding a physician who is understanding and willing to help. I am not familiar with the Diabetes or the MS communities in your state but here patients are very organized and take legal, political and other actions to fight back.
All this under the assumption that generics are not dirt cheap.
Forgot to mention the point that the 3x weekly version has an increased concentration but not volume of the solution. So one would be injecting twice the volume and that requires preparing injections by yourself (one might need another syringe or take two shots instead of one which is worse).
Do you mean that patients will inject twice the standard vol (2x20-mg/mL) of generic version 3 times a week instead of 20-mg/mL daily? don't think this will work financially speaking plus don't think it is legal.
TEVA/Copaxone generics
Thanks for posting. More interesting to me than the single damages point is this issue:
On generic Copaxone “at risk” launches from your NYT link:
Everolimus is another one: HR = 0.33, p value < 0.0001 for PFS in 2nd line Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Sunitinib was approved for 2nd line GIST (it was very close to your threshold in 1st line as well) based on reported HR (95% CI) of 0.33 and the primary endpoint was time-to-progression (TTP).
Btw, Teva still has 8% stake in Gamida-Cell.
Gamida-Cell's first product that was jointly developed with Teva is StemEx and the story was that the FDA agreed on a single arm phase 2/3 trial with historical data as control. After reviewing the trial's results the FDA asked for additional, randomized, controlled triasl and the comp decided to stop development of this one and focus on the 2nd gen product called NiCord. Their 1st gen product was created using copper chelator technology and they moved to a nicotinamide based tech in the 2nd gen product(s).
One of the companies Teva dumped got an offer from NVS:
Novartis in advanced talks to buy Gamida-Cell
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-novartis-reportedly-in-talks-to-buy-gamida-cell-1000925082
Actually it is discounted by about 10%.
Perhaps MNTA shares' recent underperformance may be due to surveys of the MS market showing Copaxone trice-weekly launch is going well and that Teva's estimation that they can switch more than 30% before patent expires and up to 50% this year, sounds more realistic.
I can look it up and will mail you a review if I find a good one.
The source I use is clinicaltrials.gov. When it says in the Exclusion Criteria: "Previous treatment with other HCV NS5A inhibitors", it's a tell
SRPT
They did say “ 'the Berlin patient' was apparently cured of AIDS", implying to what you pointed at - that there could be a potential reservoir for latently infected cells. The error that caught my attention was that the author attributed the "bone-marrow donor who had two copies of the mutated gene for CCR5" to luck. The hematologist in “the Berlin patient” case, Dr. Gero Hütter, deliberately screened all HLA-matched donors to find one who was homozygous for CCR5-delta32 deletion mutation. That is not luck, that's intelligence in action! The only lucky thing was that such a donor was found in Germany and made the procedure easier.
From the NYT piece linked to: