Replies to post #112532 on Biotech Values

[jq1234]

I think the overall point was that blood pressure was generally controlled past one month. Given that they had said before that there was a 2-3 mm increase in blood pressure before in that first month, I don't think it's a huge leap to state that blood pressure is generally controlled when you go from a 2-3 mm increase at the end of the first month to a mean increase in blood pressure of either 0.5 mm or 1.0 mm at the end of 6 months. I.e., I think it's pretty fair to say that blood pressure is pretty well controlled once anti-hypertension medication is adjusted during that first month. I can't imagine that very small mean increase at the end of 6 months, even if that's consistent over time, is going to translate into a statistical difference in cardiovascular outcomes over the course of time, but I guess that is a risk.

There is another table for patients whose medication had to be adjusted. Take all information together, what RIGL explained was to minimize risk. The point is even after anti-hypertension medication was adjusted, patients's blood pressure still went up at 6-month. What happens next 6-month, 6-month after that because RA is chronic disease? How long FDA would require for long term safety data when the risk is obviously there? How much do they have to rule out before approval? At this point, risk/benefit profile isn't that attractive to me. It would change risk/benefit profile in my opinion if these patients didn't have other choices. You have to remember, RA patients, similar to diabetes, have elevated cardiovascular risk to begin with.

I'd be curious to hear any opinions you may have on the rest of their pipeline outside of the oral RA drug.

They are too early. I haven't seen data to have opinion, or to put value on them.