Replies to post #213076 on Biotech Values

[linhdtu]

thank you for your valuable input. glpg is already valued at 1.5Xfgen mas o menos. both are partnered with their most advanced drug and now with IPF data from both and fgen being more solid and advanced than glpg regarding IPF, is the extra MC glpg over fgen justifiable ?
i have no issue with the integrity of both mgts unlike some other biotech values lol.
also, fgen roxa although partnered, seems to me much more valuable potentially due to the "china factor" lol.

[Whalatane]

FGEN / GLPG.....ghmm ...thx for that DD.
I appreciate that you posts your thoughts on both .
Kiwi

[ghmm]

GLPG FLORA Results:

I finally got a chance to do a close listen (I'm on "vacation") and did some notes. I posted them on twitter here:

https://twitter.com/MauriceOnTW/status/896448320524230656

[jq1234]

>> The best way (IMO) to analyze [GLPG IPF data] is to look at the totality which IMO is very encouraging while clearly early and not definitive proof.


I have to laud you for being the only one on my twitter stream who pointed out some caveats on FGEN IPF data because you followed ITMN for a long time. I initially thought it was really amazing to see the overwhelming euphoria over FGEN IPF data vs universal scorn on GLPG IPF data on twitter, then realized the reaction was somewhat consistent as most just focused on FVC data - statistical models used and missing data imputations can affect FVC result significantly thus sensitivity analysis and imaging data go a long way to support FVC data in IPF trial the size of FGEN and GLPG.

[mcbio]

GLPG/FGEN/IPF -

1. The varying n's is because no strategy was implemented for missing data they just reported what was available.
2. The FVC was NOT stat sig at the 12 week time point. However clearly this study was not powered for that.
3. This was a very small exploratory study cherry picking data (to show good or bad) is going to lead people to believe what they want. The best way (IMO) to analyze is to look at the totality which IMO is very encouraging while clearly early and not definitive proof.

Thanks for the comments. I think points 1-3 in particular still show the risk with this early data. All it would take is an adjustment for 1 or 2 patients (given the small number of patients in the trial and limited duration of the data) to presumably have a big effect on the totality of the data. It will be interesting to see more data from both GLPG and FGEN.