Biotech Values

[iwfal]

ARRY -

Why didn't they sugar coat the Press Release with a little more detail?

I know little about ARRY - but the trial seems reasonable and the PR seems reasonable for it.

1) They designed a small ph ii - randomized (good on them - too few companies use randomized ph iis in onco)

2) They made the primary endpoint OS - again, good on them since it prevents cross-over which will significantly distort OS via x-over.

3) Given that the primary endpoint was, in fact, OS the PR couldn't really say much more than they did - they did 'fail' on the primary endpoint. (It is much easier to spin "good PR" when OS is contaminated, ... .)

Altogether the whole thing makes ARRY look more attractive to me, not less. They avoided even the appearance of BS - e.g. they could have said it was an exploratory trial, not sized to be stat sig on OS, ... . All true in this case - but look like BS.

PS In order to have ended up stat sig on an 87 person trial the OS HR would have had to be about 0.62 or better. Fairly rare to find this in solid tumors. How many solid tumor onco drugs released in the last decade have had an OS HR this good or better? Two? Three?