Welcome to the POTP board, the DPP-IV company | Stock Discussion Forums

SiliconInvestor

register

Sponsor

register

Biotech / Medical | Welcome to the POTP board, the DPP-IV company

Previous 10 | Next 10

To: rkrw who wrote (48)	11/19/2006 10:17:02 AM
From: drbio45	of 90

Also I don't like the aggrastat inlicense. Recurring theme in bio is the small bio thinking they can turn others trash (this one has been through mrk, glfd and mogn) and turning it into gold. Good luck to them. Usually companies overpay for inlicensed products. In this case they paid 17 million for a drug doing over 10 million in sales with no sales force. It is the top selling drug in Europe in the space and there is tremendous data on it. They don't have to increase sales much to make it very valuable and if they don't increase sales it still reduces the burn and is a net positive. There is nothing not to like because they paid so little for it. I was in the stock for Mc-1 not aggrastat. Aggrastat just makes the story better because the same doctors in the mc-1 trials are potential purchasers of aggrastat. It is relationship building more than trying to sell a shitty drug. It is a good drug and guilford killed the product when they started a large trial in over 100 sites and decided not to pay the sites for the money they spent during the trial. These sites were not unhappy with the drug, they were unhappy with the company selling it.

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: dr.praveen who wrote (47)	11/19/2006 10:41:47 AM
From: drbio45	of 90

But the thing is the study's size and pr endpoint were acc to CK-MB of more than 50ng/ml. But when they assess it for the end point CK-MB of greater than 100ng/ml, I don't feel comfortable If you look at the previous trials in this area the marker used has always been ck-mb of 100ng/ml. Because they only used 900 patients they never thought they would see enough events using that marker so they used 50ng/ml, but all it did was cause noise because. It is remarkable that they achieved statistical significance in such a small study. The other thing that is interesting is that they had good results with both doses. They actually reduced the cardiac events by 37 percent in the 250 mg dose and 31 percent in the 750 dose so the higher dose confirmed the efficacy of the lower dose and in my opinion reduces the risk of the trial because the drug efficacy has actually been confirmed twice. The better question would be could the drug actually be more effective lest say at a 400mg dose. If they were pfizer I guess they would have the money to check that out

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

To: rkrw who wrote (52)	11/19/2006 5:09:18 PM
From: drbio45	of 90

They paid 17 million for a drug doing over 10 million. If they don't need a large sales force and it brings in positive cash flow because of that, I don't see it as a bad deal. If they can get a sales promotion kind of deal on MC-1 then it really makes sense So as I see it aggrastat has extremely little downside. Any increase in revenues is gravy MC-1 is a phase 3 drug with excellent efficacy and safety in a phase 2 trial which was so good the FDA allowed it to be recognized as a pivotal trial in a half billion dollar market, maybe more. No drug anywhere near them as competition in the indication. What is not to like?

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: rareearth42 who wrote (40)	11/19/2006 5:26:51 PM
From: drbio45	of 90

Right now Point has a market cap with a phase 3 drug in a billion dollar market with a 45 million dollar market cap on fully diluted shares. the drug is an oral pill that reduces the toxicities of the chemo drugs it is used with and actually is synergistic with them. The fact that the company has been put into this condition because the management waited too long to raise money is unfortunate. Management made a mistake and the funds getting out before the raise hurt the stock. I own some but not as much as I had and I will buy more when the financing is finally done because I believe the drug works and will be big but I don't know where the stock will be by the time they raise the money. This was certainly amateur hour.

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: drbio45 who wrote (49)	11/19/2006 6:53:25 PM
From: rareearth42	of 90

drbio45, I beg to differ regarding your interpretation of MCU's trial on a couple of points. first of all, most vitamins on the market contain pyridoxal-5-phosphate, precisely the chemical composition of MCU's "MC-1". Take a look at this article for a clear description: theheart.org Other vitamins may have a mixture of pyridoxine, pyridoxamine, and pyridoxal phosphate, but pyridoxal-5-phosphate is the active form of the vitamin. Next, the MEND-CABG trial did indeed show a significant benefit of the 250 mg dose of vitamin B6, but the 750 mg dose wasn't significant. This is a big red flag, as I would expect a real effect to have a dose response. Remember we were all excited about ALXN's significant results in their comparable big phase 2 studies with pexelizumab. The bottom line is that I don't see what will stop generic competition and I'm not particularly confident the phase 3 trial will be successful, so MCU is not for me. RE42

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (2)

Previous 10 | Next 10

Copyright/IP Policy

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.