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.
VRTX Begins Phase-3 Telaprevir Trial
Let's say this telaprevir + peg IFN trial is successful - and also assume the genotype 1 HGS Albuferon trial is successful as well. In this case, Albuferon would almost surely be approved before telaprevir, so let's assume that as well.
With these fairly reasonable assumptions - will the FDA approve telaprevir ...
(i) only in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin
or
(ii) in combination with either any approved IFN-alpha and ribavirin ?
[Remember - thus far no trial of telaprevir + Albuferon has even begun ... not even a Phase 1 trial.]
If (i), then Albuferon could only be used with telaprevir off-label, and reimbursement might well be an issue. Obviously that could hurt Albuferon sales.
I have my own opinion regarding (i) vs (ii), but I'd like to hear from others - particularly Dew.
micro
O/T >>Most service stations are independently owned and operated and take in between 7 and 10 cents for every gallon they sell, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.<<
Now think about a station charging an extra dime per gallon compared to the station down the road ...
Doesn't seem like much to you or me, but it can easily double his profit margin.
micro
When Did Biotech Investors Get So Sophisticated?
Very interesting article - thanks.
micro
>>
micro,,,,,
I like Onxx and its promises, but they should fire whoever wrote the Bayer agreement. One of the worse out there, and it could handcuff Onxx for a long time.<<
Renton is already gone. ;o)
But what are you referring to? The fact that Bayer has effective veto power over a 3rd party suitor?
A 50/50 profit-sharing deal worldwide (except Japan) is pretty sweet for a tiny partner. The only concern I have is that Bayer may be able to play games with the expenses to reduce those 'profits'.
micro
head-to-head trials
>>Companies think they have more to lose by losing than they have to gain by winning.<<
I thought of that. But can the companies actually prevent a cooperative group from carrying out such a trial?
If they did ... consider it a useful bit of information for the next compendium update ...
micro
>>>>There is no other systemic therapy approved for liver cancer and none are even in Phase III yet, I think.<<<<
>>I presume you are referring to the metastatic setting, specifically. PLGA has a phase-3 trial for liver cancer in the adjuvant setting.<<
You meant PGLA.
Other than that, you are correct as usual.
At present it is being tested following potentially curative resection. That means they are only going after ~20% of the market for now.
In addition Progen has a less than $100M market cap and they seem to have no partner. The chance of them seriously competing with Bayer/Onyx/Nexavar may be rather slim ...
micro
Glaxo's Tykerb goes head-to-head with Herceptin
I don't understand why there aren't more head-to-head trials. Often one sees compendium first-line, 2nd-line, etc. recommendations based on comparisons of trials which are really not comparable. I know head-to-head trials occur occasionally, but I am surprised that the cooperative groups don't carry them out more routinely. For example I don't think there is a head-to-head comparing Velcade to Revlimid in MM, so oncologists will continue to have to guess as to the best sequence to give their patients.
Why??
micro
>>RAD001 could be a near-term threat to Nexavar in the second-line setting following failure on Sutent or some other regimen.<<
I think Nexavar is getting marginalized in kidney cancer. There seem to be only two ways out. One could come from successful combination trials, which could be helped from the fact that Nexavar's AE profile at the recommended dose is a bit better than the competition. The second is higher dose Nexavar. A small single site study showed that most patients can put up with higher doses if you start at the standard dose and then move up from there. And at the higher doses a lot of clinical responses and even some complete responses were seen - which doesn't happen at the standard dose for Nexavar. The company is excited about that result and is trying to replicate it in a larger multi-site study.
If Nexavar does get marginalized in kidney cancer, it doesn't matter much. Liver cancer is the home run. There have been three very successful liver cancer trials, all stopped early. There is no other systemic therapy approved for liver cancer and none are even in Phase III yet, I think.
Heck. Bayer/Onyx could try to double the price of the drug wherever possible and just write off kidney cancer.
I believe that by the end of this year, the sales potential in liver cancer will be clear, and concerns about profitability will dissipate. The stock will reach a new high.
But somebody please bookmark this and humiliate me on New Year's Day if I am wrong ...
micro
>>Anyone wants to know his/her risk to develope AD? Not me.<<
Could you repeat the question, please?
micro
Cats protect from cardiovascular disease?
>>The researchers performed multivariate analyses on risk factors for heart disease in these patients, adjusting for differences in age, gender, ethnicity/race, systolic blood pressure, cigarette smoking, diabetes mellitus, serum cholesterol and body mass index.<<
Clearly there's a lot of things they didn't adjust for. Could it be that cat owners are on average richer and more highly educated, for example, thereby having better access to health care and being more likely to make wise healthcare-related decisions?
They may eat more fish and drink more wine as well.
micro
>>Teva reported today that the CoGenesys acquisition closed (#msg-26992602), and evidently there was no valuation adjustment. I would consider this bullish for Albuferon.<<
It is clearly bullish for the hypothesis that the 'problem' with Albuferon is not a(n albumin-fusion technology) class effect. But I don't see why the acquisition closing w/o adjustment is bullish for Albuferon in particular ... given that Albuferon wasn't included in the Teva-CoGenesys deal.
micro
>>What was Bayer thinking?!<<
1. Onyx says lung hemorrhage was not a significant issue with the Bayer/Onyx lung cancer trial which was stopped. I.e. that doesn't seem to be why squamous cell patients had higher mortality in the sorafenib arm, according to Onyx.
2. I believe the way the trial was set up, if squamous cell patients had bleeding or other problems, the trial could have continued with non-squamous patients only. Obviously that didn't happen.
3. The trial was stopped not because of more deaths seen in squamous cell patients with vs w/o sorafenib, but simply because no evidence of efficacy was seen in the full population.
I figured the chance sorafenib would fail in this trial were high. I didn't figure 2008 guidance - if you can call it that - would be so crappy ...
Egg on my face now, but wait a few quarters ...
micro
Cell Genesys
Surprised nobody posted on this ...
On Friday, CEGE was up as high as 45% intraday and closed up 20%. Why?
They came out with this PR Friday.
>>Cell Genesys Reports Association Between Immune Response and Patient Survival in Phase 2 Trial of GVAX Immunotherapy for Prostate Cancer<<
>>The serum of 65 patients (the total number for whom adequate sera were available) were examined to determine each patient's immune response to two specific antigens, HLA-A24 and FLJ14668, following GVAX treatment. Thirty-four of 65 patients demonstrated an FLJ14668-specific antibody immune response. These 34 patients had a median survival of 43 months, compared to a median survival of 21 months achieved by the patients who did not generate anti-FLJ14668 antibodies (p=0.002). Twenty-two of these 65 patients received a dose of GVAX immunotherapy for prostate cancer comparable to that being evaluated in ongoing Phase 3 clinical trials. Of these 22 patients, 16 patients (73 percent) mounted an immune response to FLJ14668. These 16 patients achieved a median survival of 44.9 months.<<
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080215/aqf043.html?.v=32
Here's the actual abstract:
>>Identification of antibody responses induced in patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC) treated with GVAX immunotherapy for prostate cancer
Sub-category: Prostate
Category: Genitourinary Cancers
Meeting: 2008 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
Abstract No: 161
Author(s): T. Harding, M. Nguyen, K. Koprivnikar, G. Huan-Tu, N. Sacks, E. J. Small, K. Jooss
Abstract: Introduction: GVAX immunotherapy for prostate cancer is comprised of 2 allogeneic prostate carcinoma cell lines (PC-3 and LNCaP) that have been modified to secrete GM-CSF. It has been tested in patients (pts) with mHRPC in 2 multicenter Phase II trials, G-9803 and G-0010. The subset of pts in these 2 trials who received doses comparable to the Phase 3 dose showed median survival of 34.9 months (m) and 35.0 m, respectively. Methods: Immunotherapy-induced antibody (Ab) responses were evaluated in 14 pts in the G-0010 and G-9803 trials whose observed survival exceeded that predicted by the Halabi nomogram using 3 methods i) serological analysis of gene expression (SEREX), ii) protein chip analysis, iii) screening pre-defined prostate cancer antigens (Ags). Responses observed in at least 2 of the 14 pts were then examined in all evaluable G-0010 pts (n=65). Ab response was evaluated for potential association with survival using the Cox regression model, adjusted for prognostic factors and dose group. Results: Analysis of Ab responses in 14 pts yielded 146 candidate Ags. 86 of these Ab-responses were seen in only 1/14 pts screened, with 60 responses seen in > 2 pts. Preliminary data from all G-0010 pts suggests that titers of Ab to the PC-3-derived HLA-A24 or protein FLJ14668 may be associated with survival. Among HLA-A24 haplotype negative pts, the HLA-A24 Ab-positive pts (n=30) had a median survival of 43 m vs. 18 m if Ab-negative (n=28), HR=0.53, p=0.05. Pts with Ab to protein FLJ14668 (n=34) had a median survival of 43 m vs. 21 m in Ab negative pts (n=31), HR=0.34, p=0.002. Conclusions: GVAX immunotherapy for prostate cancer induces a polyvalent IgG Ab response. The majority of proteins targeted are pt-specific; however, a smaller group of higher frequency Ab targets were identified. Apparent associations of Ab titers of HLA-A24 and FLJ14668-specific IgG with survival were observed. Phase II immunomonitoring studies are designed to identify Ab candidates that will be evaluated further in 2 on-going 600 pt phase 3 trials of GVAX immunotherapy for prostate cancer with the goal of identifying potential biomarkers of response and new diagnostic assays for the disease.<<
http://www.asco.org/ASCO/Abstracts+%26+Virtual+Meeting/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=54&abstractID=20520
Here's my interpretation:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_C/threadview?bn=3352&tid=43344&mid=43408
Basically yet another case of stronger patients both living longer and generating more of an immune response - and retrospective data mining to discover the two (out of thousands of) antigens with the biggest correlation with survival.
Does anyone disagree? If not, we have a stock which was up as high as 45% on Friday on the basis of a PR which does not change the odds of success or failure of CEGE's Phase 3 trials - and probably a short squeeze.
Would be interested if there is another view here. Maybe I'm missing something.
micro
HIV Thwarts Even the Best Drugs by Hiding in the Gut
Not sure if anybody already posted this.
>>A cellular protein that helps guide immune cells to the gut has been newly identified as a target of HIV when the virus begins its assault on the body's immune system, according to researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).<<
>>In the new study, which appears online Feb. 10, 2008 in Nature Immunology, NIAID scientists identify a cell adhesion molecule known as integrin alpha 4 beta 7 as another potentially important receptor for HIV.<<
http://www.nih.gov/news/health/feb2008/niaid-10.htm
Several companies including MLNM (going into Phase 3 end of this year) are developing alpha-4 beta-7 inhibitors for ulcerative colitis and Chron's disease. As the article indicates, these drugs should be gut specific and therefore will hopefully generate less side effects than others presently in use for UC and Chron's. Maybe the alpha-4 beta-7 inhibitors will have wider use now that the HIV connection has been elucidated - but my guess is not, given that nearly all HIV patients have CCR5 or CXCR4 tropic virus. Probably alpha 4 beta 7 is not one of the main HIV receptors.
micro
>>Adam Feurstein video from BIO CEO conference<<
I'm a big fan of Adam's, but I didn't notice any glumness or lack of interest at BIO CEO.
On the other hand, I've only attended two of them, and he's probably attended dozens.
micro
>>We still have CCs where we here analysts say they will ask the question offline (and the devil is in the detail).<<
More annoying is the analyst report that begins, "We hosted a dinner for management last night."
And of course it is extremely common that analysts pay clinical trial PI's (directly or through intermediary companies).
Nobody pays someone for nothing.
Once I was lucky enough to hear a discussion which took place as a pseudo-private conference call hosted by Prudential. The doc was careful not to cross the line, but he did make it clear he thought the trial in question would turn out to be a success.
This was the ONXX melanoma Phase 3 trial. When it failed I felt a lot better about the call.
micro
>>So the traders grabbed for their phones and started to put out any bad thoughts they could dream up about I.B.M. They called journalists, retailers, anyone. They sold huge amounts of I.B.M. short. Soon, they had I.B.M. on the run, made money on their shorts and went to Langan’s to drink champers.<<
If that story's true, I say GREAT! Because if I was following IBM and they went down on "stellar numbers" - assuming they went down enough - I'd buy hand over fist. And a few days or weeks later I'd probably sell at a nice profit and be thankful for the idiots who played the trade WRONG.
It doesn't get much easier than that.
micro
Trading, investing, driving, reading
>>Aren't you arguing for the "classic" investment strategies outlined in books like those by Philip Fisher? They never make the argument that you should buy and hold as a strategy in and of itself without constantly re-examining the criteria that got you into a stock in the first place.<<
Sorry for the belated reply. I have sold out of many companies which continued to satisfy the "criteria" that got me interested in the first place and continued to perform very well from a business perspective.
The reason is simply that they were no longer cheap compared to my estimate of their intrinsic value.
I think too many investors get caught holding or even buying at the top because they don't realize that while the worth of a company is increasing, the market cap is increasing faster - typically as more and more investors notice the story. So I don't think I agree with Philip Fisher - whoever he is.
micro
Warning: Fast Driving May Lead to More Trading
I have an untested and ill-defined theory that while most investors that trade 'a lot' do worse as a result, many good investors can do better by being more price sensitive and thereby doing more trading and less 'buying and holding'.
Good investors have a better idea as to what the companies they follow are worth, and it is rare that a company is truly undervalued for many years at a time. Therefore I hypothesize that buying and holding stocks for many years is generally a bad idea for good investors.
There are always notable exceptions. For example I held ISRG for many years and was glad I did. But as soon as it appeared to be close to fully valued I went into a 'trading mode' and deployed that capital elsewhere. While I haven't calculated it exactly, I suspect my turnover rate is at least 200%/year, i.e. I hold my average position for less than 6 months.
Of course some traders hold their average position for less than 6 hours. They probably get speeding tickets almost as often.
;o)
micro
INGN – Form 5
Thanks - sorry.
I still think a gift of that size is not simply a gift but a means to set up an annuity. It has been reported elsewhere that this is one technique insiders sometimes use to extract value from their holdings w/o having to file a "sell".
micro
Introgen
Haven't followed this scam company for some time, but I happened to notice this filing - which came out today.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018710/000142617008000001/xslF345X02/primary_doc.xml
Three very strange things: the date of the transaction, the amount of the gift, the fact that it is a form 5 rather than 4.
The date of the transaction is 11 months ago. I'm sure the SEC will be pleased.
The amount of the gift is over 100,000 shares. Shares, not options. My guess is this is some sort of annuity trust, whereby the recipient gets the gift, but the donor gets an annuity from it for the duration of his life. A nice way of making a sale not look like a sale ... Helps on taxes, too.
Finally - a form 5 rather than 4. I don't get that. As far as I can tell, Enloe has been with that company forever. Isn't a form 5 filed when someone just joins a company?
Comments?
micro
2007 FDA approvals
http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v7/n2/pdf/nrd2514.pdf
excerpts ...
>>Unsurprisingly, one factor to which the scarcity of approvals has been attributed by some is an increased level of regulatory caution in the wake of high-profile safety issues, such as those for Avandia (rosiglitazone; GlaxoSmithKline) last year.
"It does appear that the agency is changing how it assesses benefits and risks when it approves new products. It is extremely concerning to us if the outcome of this effort is a slow down in drug approvals," says Sara Radcliffe, Vice President for Science and Regulatory Affairs at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "But it is statistically difficult to identify a trend," she adds.
Alternatively, as the FDA has reportedly countered, it could be that their expectations have not increased, but rather that they have simply become better at identifying potential risks, and that not only have the number of applications decreased, they are also not good enough.
"Unless you go through piece by piece to compare packages, which is not easy to do, it is hard to see who is correct. It appears that the bar is being raised a bit, and maybe that is necessary," says Christopher-Paul Milne, Associate Director of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, USA. "From a public health standpoint, the FDA is leaning towards asking for more information rather than allowing the product on the market and dealing with any problems as they arise."<<
>>Some analysts say that figures already suggest that there will be more NDAs in 2008<<
micro
Private IHUB messages
Occasionally I get private IHUB messages to which I am unable to reply because I am too cheap to subscribe. (I spend 0.1% of my investments per year on related conferences, trade journals, pay websites, other investment-related expenses ... and so far IHUB hasn't made the cut!) Others may have had the same experience.
I would meekly suggest that those who send private messages also provide an email address so that a reply can be sent w/o an IHUB subscription.
This has been a public service announcement ...
;o)
micro
O/T Mac vs PC
>>Or, when you get tired of all this and realize you are spending a lot of money and time trying just to fix a permanently broken system, spend that extra money on an Apple instead and be done with the nonsense. (I used PC's for thirty years, but after you try a Mac, you never look back.)<<
Heh. I used Macs for a decade but got tired of them crashing - not just crashing, but crashing badly! Also they were not being well supported by the software industry and I had trouble interacting with 95% of the world.
Been using PC's for more than a decade and have found them more reliable.
Of course it is always possible that Macs may have changed in the interim ...
micro
BIO CEO meeting in New York in 10 days
Anybody besides me going?
micro
(microcapfun@yahoo.com)
>>ARAY – The reason for the 35% sell-off today: many investors evidently don’t believe management’s claim that the lowered revenue guidance is attributable to the inability of prospective customers to secure financing for CyberKnife purchases.<<
ISRG - which also sells large and expensive systems to many of the same customers as ARAY - reported today after the close. In the cc, management said there was absolutely no problem with financing - no problem at all.
That plus great quarterly numbers and excellent guidance led to ISRG being up 25% in the aftermarket.
micro
Pfizer Licenses Selzentry to Non-Profit for HIV Prevention
In this other article, it is stated that: "(Pfizer) has agreed to give IPM a royalty-free license to maraviroc, its newly-approved HIV treatment, as a microbicide for the prevention of HIV infection."
http://sev.prnewswire.com/infectious-disease-control/20080130/DC1277730012008-1.html
Why would Pfizer give away a non-royalty bearing license to use Selzentry as a prophylactic - which could actually reduce its use as an HIV therapy??
If they thought that Selzentry would be successful as a prophylactic ... wouldn't they want to hang onto it??
An attack of 'morals'??
micro
>>HGSI – Thanks for your comments. In general, an unplanned dose reduction during phase-2b or phase-3 is a good reason to sell, IMO.<<
Luckily I don't have any HGSI to sell.
micro
Albuferon
HGS has been on my watch list almost forever. For what it's worth, I previously assumed a 88.5% chance Albuferon would be approved, with $1B peak worldwide sales if it was approved.
After pulmonary tox was seen at the 1200 mcg dose in Phase 3, I have changed those numbers to 60% (eventually) and $900M.
As has been discussed, 900 mcg is not so far away from 1200 mcg. Metabolism and PK variation between individuals are likely sufficient to make 900 mcg in some look like 1200 mcg (or higher) in others. Furthermore, a higher rate of shortness of breath and coughing compared to Pegasys was seen at 900 mcg in the Phase 2b trial.
Financially, HGS has increased expenses and expense guidance recently. If the Albuferon revenue stream doesn't turn on by 2010, they will likely find themselves with no cash and >$750M debt which won't convert ...
micro
tolerization
A 5-patient study!
micro
>>Q: Was Teva blindsided by the Albuferon problem… or did Teva know about it and use it to negotiate a lower acquisition price?<<
My guess is that they were blindsided - and if the breakup fee isn't too large, it wouldn't surprise me greatly if they paid it.
On the other hand, the pulmonary side effects may well be specific to albumin fused with IF-alpha. Apparently there are low levels of that AE with IF-alpha alone.
micro
>>Micro, thanks for reply. I am considering buying at $48 and writing a Jan 09 - 50 strike call for $13 for a net debit of $35, if Onyx becomes a $40 stock I am covered and if called at $50 it is a gain of 30%, what sayest thou?<<
I'm not going to comment on your particular investment strategy, but I will be surprised and disappointed if ONXX does not at least double from here within the next year.
The recent article noting hypertension from Nexavar was a total red herring, by the way. That was already on the label. Anti-angiogenics cause high blood pressure. What a surprise!
;o)
micro
Nexavar
>>Feuersteins's comments on Onyx today:
"The simplistic way I look at the scenario, Onyx is a $40 stock if Nexavar lung fails; it goes to $90 to $100 if it works."
Any comments about the 1 year investment parameters suggested above?<<
There are two P3 lung cancer trials involving different chemo combos. Lung is a tough indication - but Avastin's success augurs well for another anti-angiogenic to succeed. I give Onyx/Bayer about a 30% chance to succeed in the first P3 trial, and if that fails, about a 10% chance of succeeding in the 2nd one. Either one succeeding would lead to a registration.
RCC and HCC alone probably justify much more than a $40 stock price, however. The market still is skeptical as to how big liver will be because there has never been a serious liver cancer market before (thanks to no previously approved systemic therapy), and because there are few liver cancer patients in the U.S.
Within a few quarters that skepticism will evaporate IMO.
micro
>>It is a cartel my friend with clear understanding as to who calls the main shots. The big fish lead and the small fish follow. It is all about making money at the expense of the retail investor and YES they are in collusion with the financial news and the TV, etc... They give them the crums for stories and these oblige so that they can keep getting the crums. As to hedge funds being on different sides of the trades, that very rarely happens and when it does the bigger one wins. Overall, hedge funds collectively short small cap stocks and collectively go long the big caps. That is what they call their scam hedging by pushing some through the roof and others down to hell. Small biotechs are especially fertile grounds for them...<<
Private message to all cartel hit men - CODE RED - repeat - CODE RED: This croumagnon character is clearly onto us. We can't let him get this story to any more retail investors. First one to find out who he is and knock him off gets $1M.
(I wanted to make an example of him, but BIG FISH says make it look like an accident.)
- Little Fish
>>With the new news of their research breakthrough in stem cell research which allows for stem cell cultivating without destroing embryos, should we be lookin at this company more?<<
That was no research breakthrough. All they did was put together two standard techniques which have been used for many years: pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and the growing of a line of embryonic stem cells from one cell.
The only purpose for this silly exercise is to grow a line of ESCs from a fertilized egg w/o eliminating the chance of generating a baby from the same egg. But since the lines of ESCs presently produced all come from spare fertilized eggs which are going to be thrown away otherwise - not used to produce babies - it is a mindless charade that only a religious fanatic could love.
West already jumped ship; ACT will probably go bust.
micro
>>
Foods From Cloned Animals Safe to Eat: FDA
I am not sure that the FDA is correct in their assessment! My limited knowledge of cloning tells me that the cloned offsprings have their telomers much shorter than a regular natural offspring as they follow the animal age they were cloned from.<<
That was a worry initially, but telomerase is activated in the fetus and I do not think it turned out to be a major worry. Even if reprogramming is incomplete in the first generation, by the 2nd generation (which is the earliest one you might eat since clones cost ~$15K each!) - it should be complete. Indeed, offspring of clones appear to be perfectly normal in all respects.
>>Moreover why Clone animals for eating? what is wrong with the natural cycle of things?<<
It's just more efficient. For example it is fairly easy to obtain thousands of offspring of a prize bull ... but what about the cows? They can only have about one offspring per year. With cloning you can make enough copies of a prize cow to start a herd. And you can even choose which to clone on the basis of how a steak tastes - as long as you save a few cells from each animal before it is slaughtered.
Yucky stuff - I know ...
micro
O/T >>60 is supposedly the “new 40,” but it does seem rather late to be getting breast implants. By that age, you would think someone would have already acted or else decided she was content with what she had.<<
I suspect previous financial limitations and competing family needs may play a role in many cases.
Other factors may involve age-related sagging, an attempt to find a new mate after divorce or death of an old one ... and dementia.
Just kidding about the dementia ...
micro
ATACICEPT vs Lymphostat B
>>The second slide should serve as notice that ATACICEPT is for real, at least against the vaunted LymphoStat-B product. (RA: 3 months vs. 6 months? Lupus: 1 month vs. 1 year? Holy cow!)<<
It isn't clear to me that a good surrogate for efficacy is how fast and how hard you knock down all antibodies. You would like some selectivity against self-antibodies, which is not addressed by your chart. Furthermore HGS has talked about marketing LSB for long-term, chronic SLE therapy due to its total lack of toxicity to date and indications that its therapeutic benefits increase over time. They do not expect to market LSB for the initial treatment of flares.
I.e. first you would knock down a flare with Rituximab or maybe Atacicept, and then you would treat the patient indefinitely with LSB.
I'm not saying HGS is right or that LSB will pass its Phase 3 hurdle; just that your chart doesn't indicate Atacicept has more commercial potential than LSB.
micro
statins and cancer
Don't go after me Precious ... but the good results just keep on coming ...
The association between statins and cancer incidence in a veterans population
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 01/10/08
Farwell WR et al. - In a trial to investigate the link between 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors or statins for cardiovascular disease prevention and cancer incidence, it seems that patients using statins may be at lower risk for developing cancer
Methods
25,594 patients using antihypertensive medications but no cholesterol-lowering medications and 37,248 patients using statins who were enrolled in the VA New England Healthcare System were enrolled
Age- and multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for cancer incidence, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer, among patients taking statins compared with patients taking antihypertensive medications and among patients grouped by statin dose
Results
Absolute incidence of total cancers was 9.4% among statin users and 13.2% among nonusers
Statin users had a statistically significant lower risk for total cancer than nonusers after adjustment for age and multiple potential confounders
A statistically significantly decreased risk of all cancers was also associated with increasing statin use
micro
jbog:
I don't have an IHUB subscription so I can't reply to your private message. Please send me an email to microcapfun@yahoo.com.
micro