Boom (and Timbo from ADVFN) brought to our attention that Neil Woodford is starting a small cap biotech fund. This is another link to the story: http://tinyurl.com/oscndp9 It prompted me to look at the constituents of his existing Equity Income Fund . (you can do this by registering on his website) The top 15 are mainly large cap income players consisting of cigarettes and bombs ;) After that there are about 25 small cap biotech companies out of a remaining 57. A very high proportion you may agree. The exact constituents of his new fund will be fascinating. Leas: thanks, appreciated.
Goy, great post as usual. I have been invested for about 2 years but I'm sure if I was invested for the last 5 then I would be very sceptical of the BoD and their approach to business. I suspect their focus is placed elsewhere and investor sentiment very low on their list. However, I do think if the trials are a success then 'word of mouth' will promote the treatment. A close family member has had kidney disease for most of his life and had a transplant about 15 years ago. He has remained fit and healthy throughout but is living in hope that improved drugs come online to help delay the inevitable.
RE: Leas ,just in passing!
Yes, I had noticed. Sub penny shares tend do that on a regular basis. However, I guess you know from REM. Showing your hand yet again as a hypocrite in relation to ramping are you willing to participate in WH's Christmas charity lottery. Be nice to share some of your wealth to a charity of your choice. I'm surprised my comment got under your skin so much. You did post 'end of' which I took as subject closed but your ego seems to have got the better of you. atb leas.... end of. :)
It is worth reinforcing that Benlysta is NOT licensed as monotherapy. Thus whatever side-effects it provokes will be IN ADDITION to the far from benign side-effect profile of any concomitant steroids, antimalarials, immunosuppressants or NSAIDS. Similarly, it is not, as far as I know, envisaged that Lupuzor will be monotherapy. The same therefore applies. Of course, there may eventually be a tapering-off of other medication, but any eventual monotherapy would need confirmation by Phase IV trials or would be an off-label use etc. Any cost advantage will not be $38,000 per year vs $15,000 per year but '$38,000 + the drug bill for existing therapy' vs ' $15,000 plus the drug bill for existing therapy'. Although cheap generic versions are available for the vast majority of these concomitant drugs, Boom's piece the other day on healthcare costs in the US suggest that the raw materials are but one element of the cost. Similarly, patient convenience would appear to be superior for Lupuzor but there would still presumably be some biochem. testing and thus attendance at clinic. Again, this would be in addition to the monitoring already required for the antimalarials and immunosuppressants etc. For example, the immunosuppressant Azathioprine which requires weekly blood counts during the first 8/52 and then monthly thereafter. Not cheap. My concern with Lupuzor is that no progress, for one reason or another, has been made in the clinic since February 2009. Thus 6 years will have elapsed. Should patients be stabilised on Benlysta or Epratuzumab and are enjoying SOME benefit it would require more evidence of superior efficacy and/or a greater price differential for Lupuzor to DISPLACE them as ESTABLISHED therapy. Persuading patients whose Lupus had previously been uncontrolled for decades and had received some benefit to suddenly try another new drug might be difficult. Benlysta: http://tinyurl.com/mhad3pw This oldish paper gives quite a succinct summary of the different mechanisms of action of all the protagonists. http://tinyurl.com/lmwr9l2
Leas ,just in passing!
Thank you for Hi-Liting ( endorsing) my post ref:- STG . S.P is UP 8-53% Today !!!
It will matter if the results are similar. Agree regarding the end game. That any outcome should be in our favour (CRO/Pharma) is a key attraction here.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.