Replies to post #108934 on Biotech Values

[bladerunner1717]

McBio,

From what little I know, epratuzumab is supposed to be quite superior to Benlysta, because it targets organs in a positive way that Benlysta does not. However, "jq1234" is right in pointing out that at the highest dose, epratuzumab was not nearly as effective as it was at significantly lower doses. The science folks here can maybe help me out on the possible reasons for this. Clearly, UCB has enough confidence in the drug to take it into large Phase III testing. (And Dr. Garren says that UCB is a pretty sharp company.)

I own a little of the stock. Management strikes me as a bit weird: The CEO is the founder's wife. I have a distrust of these "family-run" biotechs, ever since my experience with NEOT. And the founder has assumed the CEO position about three different times. And the finances seem shaky, at best.

BTW, Dr. Garren likes the company a lot, but not so much for epratuzumab, but rather for its radio-labeled pancreatic cancer drug, where he says it has achieved the most spectacular results in early testing that he's ever seen in that most difficult to treat cancer.

What are your thoughts (or anyone else's)?


Bladerunner

[turtlepower]

IMMU/UCB uses a different metric for the PE from what HGSI/GSK used. I have to double check but I also think that the patient populations in the IMMU PII trial had patients with more severe SLE that HGSI omitted from their PIII trial. That turned out to be an issue according to the benlysta briefing docs since more patients with more severe SLE take other medication and the FDA is leery of allowing benlysta to be taken alongside those. As for valuation IMMU gets a 20% royalty and not a 50% sharing scheme like HGSI has. Plus there are other issues to think about such as how would the trial be designed if benlysta is approved.