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.
Isn't enterprise value a measure of net debt? No comment as to when the debt is due.
On slide 13, the p-value of the 100 mg arm is not significant at 6 months and shows less response rate than the 30 mg arm (which is significant at 6 months). Slide 11 shows the same results.
That's my guess, but I think I am wrong. Seems too obvious for that to be the answer.
CELG - NEJM Cronh's Editorial
Phase II Data for Celgene's Investigational Oral GED-0301 for Patients with Active Crohn's Disease Published in New England Journal of Medicine
Meaningfulness of PV-10 values in the current environment
General question (with a specific company in mind): Do any of you consider company PV-10 values as a meaningful metric after the collapse of energy prices? If not, what are you using instead?
Valeant lifts all-cash bid to $173/share
How do you view the risk/reward from the upcoming ADP data due this year?
Or a wholly owned ENTA combo that isn't in Ph1 yet, backed by a company with no sales force. If and when I decided to sell my ENTA shares it will be due to this decision.
Barclays initiating ENTA at equal weight
https://twitter.com/dougheuringaria/status/573669469316345856
Thanks to @dougheuring on twitter for providing some details.
Has ENTA disclosed the milestone payments associated with -493?
CELG - REVLIMID Approved by the European Commission for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Previously Untreated Multiple Myeloma who are Not Eligible for Transplant
Oral REVLIMID is approved for treatment until disease progression
BOUDRY, Switzerland--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Celgene International Sàrl, a wholly owned subsidiary of Celgene Corporation (NASDAQ: CELG), today announced that the European Commission (EC) has approved REVLIMID® (lenalidomide) for the treatment of adult patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma who are not eligible for transplant.
The REVLIMID Marketing Authorisation has been updated to include this new indication in multiple myeloma, building upon the already approved indication of REVLIMID in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of multiple myeloma in adult patients who have received at least one prior therapy.
Multiple myeloma is a persistent and life-threatening blood cancer that is characterised by tumour proliferation and suppression of the immune system.1 It is a rare but deadly disease: around 38,900 people were newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma in Europe in 2012, and 24,300 people died from the disease in the same year.2 On average, multiple myeloma is diagnosed in people 65-74 years of age,3 and the majority of newly diagnosed patients may not be eligible for more aggressive treatment options such as high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant.4
Professor Thierry Facon, Services des Maladies du Sang, Hôpital Claude Huriez, and CHRU Lille, France, says: "Having a new treatment option now available for patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma is a real step forward. Treating patients continuously until disease progression is supported by several clinical studies, and will have an important impact on how we manage the disease over the long-term."
"We are very pleased that physicians can now offer their patients a new and different treatment option," said Tuomo Pätsi, President of Celgene in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA). "Multiple myeloma is rare, but it is devastating for those who have it, and it has a major impact on their friends and family too. We have seen significant progress in the treatment of the disease over the years, with an improvement of more than 50% in 5-year survival rates, but there continues to be a need for innovative new approaches to turn deadly diseases, like this one, into manageable, long-term, chronic conditions."
The EC decision in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma was based on the results of two pivotal studies: MM-020 (also known as the FIRST trial) and MM-015.
The FIRST study, MM-020,5 was one of the largest phase III, multi-centre, open-label, randomised studies in patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma and not eligible for stem cell transplantation, including 1,623 patients. It compared lenalidomide plus dexamethasone administered in 28-day cycles until disease progression (Rd), with Rd for 72 weeks (18 cycles; Rd18) and melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT) for 72 weeks. Progression-free survival (PFS; study primary endpoint) was significantly improved in patients treated continuously with Rd, compared with those receiving MPT (primary comparison, p < 0.0001) or Rd18 (p < 0.0001). Median overall survival (OS) in patients receiving Rd continuous therapy was 58.9 months, vs. 48.5 months for patients treated with MPT (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62, 0.90), based on a March 3, 2014 interim OS analysis. The numbers of patients experiencing any grade 3 or 4 adverse event were similar in each group. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia, anaemia and infections.
MM-0155 was a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study of 459 patients that compared melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance (MPR-R) with melphalan-prednisone-lenalidomide (MPR) or melphalan-prednisone (MP) followed by placebo in patients =65 years or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Progression-free survival (PFS; study primary endpoint) was significantly improved in patients treated with MPR-R when compared with MPR and MP (p < 0.001 for comparisons of MPR-R over MPR and MP). In the MM-015 study, overall survival was not significantly improved when compared across any treatment arm. During induction, the most frequent adverse events were hematologic (including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anaemia). During the maintenance phase, the incidence of new or worsened grade 3 or 4 adverse events was low (0 to 6%).
The EC decision for the use of REVLIMID in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in adult patients ineligible for transplantation follows the positive opinion issued by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) in December 2014. It is the second European Commission approval Celgene has received this year, following the approval of OTEZLA®, the first phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitor for use in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, in January 2015. A CHMP positive opinion was also issued in January for use of the company's oncology drug ABRAXANE®, in non-small cell lung cancer.
Celgene announced on 18 February 2015 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the existing indication for REVLIMID (lenalidomide) in combination with dexamethasone to include patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma in the U.S.
jq,
are you long either HCV company? If you don't mind me asking, that is.
For those mathematically challenged (me), the value of the shares minus the cash value is currently $375 million. Or, approximately 3 years worth of earnings, not including Japan earnings.
Do you expect the cash pile to help Enta's share price in the future? (not meant sarcastically)
EVGN future questions
Dew, I know very little about EVGN and plant gene-trait discovery, so apologies for dumb questions in advance. That being said, how long does it take a phase 2 gene trait to get approved for marketing? Also, what kind of probability does a plant gene-trait have to make it through all trials and get approval?
EVGN currently looks interesting on the surface. A market cap of 230 million, 100 million in cash and 10 partnerships for future products. At this point, I simply have no idea how to ascribe value a plant gene-trait partnership.
Perhaps I am naive to the viewpoint of fund managers but I feel that a 1.6% dividend is not enough to change anything for a potential investor. The obvious argument, is 2 billion is a mere drop in GILD's bucket. However, it is still 2 billion dollars that cannot be put into deals (or outright purchases) to strength the future of the company. In my very humble opinion, a dividend for GILD is money ill spent long term. Particularly with a drug that may not outlive it's patent life.
Dew and all others, what is your opinion on the matter?
Thanks for the input. Don't put a ton of faith in tech analysis but always nice to have a reference point.
Familiar with ZIOP but I would be foolish to give an opinion without deeper knowledge. FWIW there are active crmd and ziop boards on investorvillage.
P.S. Dew, not sure the policy on bringing up other boards. Feel free to delete if necessary.
They still have to design a phase 3 trial, complete it and submit the data to the FDA. I think the time table is more than "won't be long", however at a 60-70 million market cap I think the company is very interesting. Best of luck
What news are you looking for regarding CRMD?
Opportunities and Risks for Investors After the Oil Price Slump? - (PIMCO)
As we have discussed to a certain extent on this board in the past, the question to all of us becomes; how is one best positioned for the long term price movement of oil?
Personally, I think the term less bearish applies nicely to the current situation. In my opinion, bullish would imply somewhere around $100/bbl and less bearish would fall somewhere around $70-80.
I found it incredibly odd, but assumed it to be a case of me not knowing enough to understand it...
Who determined this for SNY, the Board of Directors?
SU: 1 Billion Cut in Capital Spending, 1000 Jobs Cut
Celgene Corporation Announces 2015 and Long-Term Financial Outlook and Preliminary 2014 Results
PXD: Pioneer Natural Resources Updates Commodity Derivatives Schedule
(GILD)BofA Start of a pricing war? Downgrade to Underperform.
GILD's Harvoni/Sovaldi excluded by ESRX
Express Scripts announced that starting January 1, 2015, it will not pay for GILD's
Harvoni and Sovaldi for genotype 1 hepatitis C (HCV) patients covered under the
Express Scripts National Preferred Formulary, which affects ~25 million people.
While this only affects 7%-8% of the overall population, we believe it has significant
implications for GILD as it sets precedent for other payers and raises uncertainties
on the overall size of the HCV market. With additional competitors entering the
market in 2016, we believe there is only one direction for pricing to go. We continue
to respect GILD as an R&D organization and believe Harvoni is a superior therapy.
However, the prospect of weak pricing does not render GILD an attractive
investment at this time. We are downgrading GILD to Underperform from Buy and
lowering our PO to $87 (from $130), which is based on a 9x P/E multiple on our adj.
2016 EPS est of $9.63 (from $10.81).
ABBV offering significant discounts – we estimate 30%-35%
Although the extent of the discount ABBV is providing is unknown, Steve Miller
(Chief Medical Officer of ESRX) commented that it would significantly narrow the
price gap between the US and Europe. Of note, Sovaldi is sold at a list price of
$84,000 in the US and between $51,000 and $66,000 in EU. We suspect ABBV
may be discounting as much as 30%-35% from its list price. In addition, ABBV has
agreed not to charge twice as much if patients require 24 weeks of Viekira therapy.
Of note, Express Scripts has indicated that patients would be allowed to receive
Harvoni/Sovaldi on a case by case basis if deemed medically necessary.
The start of a HCV pricing war?
In our view, this could be the start of a pricing war and does not bode well for the
overall HCV market. GILD would likely need to provide similar discounts to other
PBMs to remain on the formulary. It may also force future competitors to further cut
pricing to acquire market share. This pricing war initiated by ABBV is unprecedented
and could also have a ripple effect across multiple branded biopharm companies.
Will this approval have a material impact on sales? T.i.a.
GILD: What does this mean long term?
What does this news mean long term for GILD? I do not believe that this is the beginning of World War 1 of biotech pricing by all companies (like AF is alluding to) but it could be the start of a localized "conflict" between GILD and ABBV.
If viewed in a vacuum, todays news is not worthy of dropping GILD's share price 13%(!) pre market IMO. The foward looking question becomes, will GILD have to respond to keep market share? Obviously the market currently believes this to be a possibility. According to reports, GILD's discount was set at 8%, so lets assume ABBV's was double that at 16% (random guess), does GILD match long term?
Respectfully disagree that GILD's sunken cost are a pricing factor. Generally speaking, the price of a drug is based on what the payor's are willing to pay and pharmacoecomonic equations.
Celgene is purchasing up $26.25 million of the offering. FWIW
Oil ETF's: Thinking out loud
Within the past week I have bought a modest amount of both CNQ and SU on the basis that they can weather a year of low prices due to their strong balance sheets. My bet is simple, I believe oil prices will rebound to $80 within the next year, and may possibly average around $80 for the next couple years (though who knows!). If this is my assumption then it is prudent to evaluate companies based on $80 oil. Both CNQ and SU are cash flow even around $80 oil for 2015, and cash flow negative at $65 oil.
The question I am wrestling is, why own part of a cash flow negative business when I can make the same bet that oil will rebound to $80 with an oil ETF? Either USO or USL should act in a similar manner to CNQ or SU on an oil rebound without the additional risk of owning a cash flow negative company while waiting. If oil hovers between $65 and $70 for the next 6-12 month these companies will react poorly. Conversely, USO or USL may not move much in that environment.
I'd truly appreciate any comments, I have no history trading ETF's but in this situation I do not see as much downside compared to being long stocks for exposure to oil.
McBio,
I don't know the particulars of this trial or company so apologies if I'm speaking out of place. On the surface it looks like an economic decision to me. This is an open label ph2 trial, its possible it will save a small cap bio significant funds to run it without a controlled placebo group.
ENLK: Doubling in size by 2017
My basis for owning ENLK is simple and longer term. ENLK has stated the company will double in size by 2017. Will share price double with it? Probably not quite, but some market cap expansion should occur (hopefully not to much by way of offerings). Ill happily collect 5% on a company that will grow that much in 3-4 years. ENLK is 51% owned by Devon and the growth will be supported by that relationship. Also ENLK is 95% fee based with inflation adjustments in place if needed, providing a large amount of stability and inflation protection.
Best of luck
P.S. ENLK had a share offering very recently, so that threat is off the table for the near future.
PAGP: This is a valuation call for me. PAGP is the general partner of PAA and is slated to grow at 21% in 2015, the growth rate increases to 26% if their current deal goes through (no reason it wouldn't as of now). Combing through the information graciously provided to the public here MLP Data Sheet
shows that within the comparable GP sub-sector PAGP is undervalued. The current yield on PAGP is 2.93%, where other GP's have a lower yield with similar growth rates. WGP at 1.86%, ENLC at 2.5% and TRGP at 2.57%. The difference seems small but I think it is significant enough to move PAGP back into the 2.5% range common of it's peers. Currently to get back to par (if we call par 2.5%) PAGP has a 17% upside and a 26% growth rate for 2015. The weakness started a few weeks ago when a secondary share offering occurred, though the market didn't seem to care that no new shares were issued, just shares own by a different company to raise funds for the current deal. Hope that makes some sense, if not please ask. I think this is the first time I've ever posted analysis of my own.
FWIW as I stated I'm not comfortable buying oil yet (though i will take a close look at HES), however I am still bullish on some MLP's that are guilty by association. I think ENLK and PAGP are good long term buys. If anyone is interested I will expand on why I like those particular names, though I'm sure there are other attractive ones.
I think the brunt of it is over but i'm not sure now is the time to buy. There has been a short-mid term fundamental shift in the oil markets. Heres a Bloomberg summary of what some analysts have said today.
OPEC REACTION WRAP
OPEC REACTION WRAP: SocGen, Barclays, BofA, Nomura See Lower Oil
By Stephen Voss
Nov. 28 (Bloomberg) -- More analysts predict lower prices
in wake of OPEC’s decision yday.
* SocGen: OPEC meeting to lead to Brent at ~$70/bbl for 2 yrs
* Barclays: Brent crude to fall below $70 in short term
* Citi: oversupply to rise to 1.3m b/d amid OPEC inaction
* RBC: oil turbulence seen over next few mos amid rebalancing
* Nomura: oil to fall to $60s as OPEC slows U.S. shale growth
* OCBC: religous adherence to quota suggests 1m b/d supply cut
* BofAML: Brent crude may fall below $60 in next 6 mos
* Credit Suisse: Brent to build base in $71.75-$67.87 area
* Deutsche Bank: mkt seen in crisis in 1H as OPEC stands pat
* Russian President Putin: sees oil mkt stabilizing in 1H
* Bloomberg’s Leung: WTI may hit floor at $60.17 on OPEC move
* Bloomberg’s Lee: slump will undermine OPEC quota compliance
I highlighted the one I agree with most.
New Oil Order Will Come in 2015 (Goldman Sachs)
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/new-oil-order-will-come-in-2015-currie-W9314v~gTc6i_YwvMZaJYA.html?cmpid=yhoo
FWIW Goldman predicts prices will be WTI $75 and Brent $85 in 1Q2015.
CEMP Third Quarter 2014 Financial Results