Re:Torcetrapib combo, Esperion, and Pfizer
It was a billion-dollar insurance policy driven by a competitive bidding process. Pfizer had the right of first refusal on the drug that put ESPR's science into the limelight. ESPR received an offer for the product, which turned into an offer for the company. Pfizer bought them in a competitive bidding process. Merck was rumored to be the second-place bidder, but we never expended any energy trying to confirm that.
As I alluded to, I haven't had any contact with the team for some time. The deal with Pfizer allowed ESPR to stay as an independent division, but clinical trial decisions were to be made by Pfizer. Because trial design and data are not considered material by pharma until late in the process, the silence on ESPR program does not necessarily mean Pfizer broke the agreement. As I said, I expect the oral drug is a backup to torcetrapib.
As far as Dew's assumption about torcetrapib/IVUS is concerned, he might be on solid footing with his guess about the trial design. Since Dr. Nissen is a key figure in that trial because of the use of IVUS, there is a good chance there is some sort of control. That item is certainly one thing I would want to know for certain before placing a large bet the trial will be successful. Since my interest in this story is mostly personal, we haven't expended any of the firm's resources in trying to find out for sure nor have I spent much time on my own in an attempt to learn the protocol.
In any case, that portion of my post was less about the torcetrapib trial than an effort to educate concerning a not commonly known aspect of IVUS in clinical trials. If it was received as disrespectful, I apologize.
David Miller
BSR, LLC
At the time this was written, I have no position in any of the companies mentioned.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
