Replies to post #395523 on Zeev's Turnips Patch-No Politics (ZEEV)

[Zeev Hed]

Well, got a partial refill on EYET at $14.17, maybe I get the rest soon. uite eevedat myself, had n order to sel DECK at 24.65, it got to $24.70, and I see no xecution, chekng back my order, $25.65. Now it is half a buck lower.

[marginnayan]

EYET - MS comments

Looks like this analyst is clinging desperately on to his original call. Oh well, only time will tell…


• Quick Comment: Strategy still unclear, but Macugen not likely to go away
Today’s call was aimed at quieting market concerns surrounding Macugen’s future, but
neither we, management, nor the outside physicians on the call have meaningful answers
yet. Eyetech and Pfizer will continue to invest heavily in Macugen for the treatment of
AMD, diabetic macular edema, and retinal vein occlusion in an attempt to differentiate
Macugen and to ensure it has a role in the treatment of AMD. Based upon the
information to-date, we doubt Macugen will entirely go away, but we continue to believe
Genentech’s Lucentis will become the dominant player in this space.
• What’s New: Eyetech hosts conference call in response to Lucentis data
During the call, management and two outside physicians outlined outstanding questions
for the Lucentis development program and attempted to convince the market of the
inappropriateness of comparing data across trials. Management’s marketing message
appears to focus on: 1) potential differences in disease severity in the different trials, 2)
potential differences in safety profile; 3) Macugen’s first mover advantage; 4) the need to
see long term Lucentis data, 5) theoretic issues of Lucentis’ pan-VEGF inhibition on
long term vision, and 6) the more frequent dosing of Lucentis in its Phase III study.
• Implications: Staying on the sidelines
The Lucentis data announced thus far suggest that this drug is a more potent agent than
Macugen for the treatment of AMD and thus, we eventually expect it to take dominant
market share. However, market dynamics in other diseases have shown the power of
first mover advantage, as Iressa still maintains a 15-20% share of new scrips in the
EGFR inhibitor market for NSCLC although it has shown no survival benefit and even
potential harm in one trial versus a definitive survival benefit with Tarceva. We look
forward to seeing additional data from the MARINA study in July, as well as results
from FOCUS (July) and ANCHOR (4Q05).