A law firm announced to begin a class action against VRTX. The charge claims that the SVR rate for the PROVE 2 control group is unfavorable and not disclosed. PROVE 2 trial began in late 2006 and it takes 1 year of dosing and 6 mos. of follow-up plus a few months' analysis time. You have to allow at least 20 months for the result. It has been only 14 months since the last patients started the trial. Besides, VRTX has the policy to disclose data only in major meetings.
The latest figure for the PROVE 2 12+12 arm is 68 % (last presentation by Dr. Alam). The control arm has 68 - 6 = 62 % ? Their claim that the control arm has only 6 % less than the TVR arm is ridiculous.
"Their claim that the control arm has only 6 % less than the TVR arm is ridiculous."
Why is that ridiculous?
BTW....those of you here for >2 yeears should remember my prediction of what the FDA will require (scope and scale of studies and associated timing) for evaluation of the marginally-effective VX950 - which turned out to be RIGHT ON THE MONEY! Ahhh...I recall the fond memories of all you whack jobs parading through the streets based on 4-week data from SIX phase 1 subjects! Cries of "accelerated approval, accelerated approval!" rang through the streets of Little Chechniya (aka Cambridge). I'm STILL lauighin' my ass off 2 years later - thanks!
" will be over 55-60 year-old, and they don't need to be treated anymore"
Why is that?
Also, the reason there are so few people in treatment is that they are waiting for a tolerable treatment. My doctor told me to wait. The treatment now is just too gnarly.
<Boger sold ALL his holdings >
You use that word "all;" I do not think it means what you think it does. C'mon, admit it...you just pulled that factoid from your dark, moist, nether regions, didn't you?
Boger sold all his holdings between $35-40 at your cost last summer. What a stupid and pathetic guy you were? The Hep.C drug market had been away over estimated. If you are a savvy investor, just pay $100/month to buy an access to IMS database, so that you can see the exact sales for Hep.C drugs and how many patients are receiving the treatment (SOC)/year. They are less 90,000 patients receiving the treatment in 2007, and will be less and less by 2015, because most Hep.C patients who got infected in late 80's via blood transfusion will be over 55-60 year-old, and they don't need to be treated anymore. The number of new patients is declining significantly in last 10-15 years, and will continue to decline. Go to CDC website, and do your own research. Also, there are several large pharmas are in the process of developing the vaccine. The market for Hep.C drug has been over invested and will collapse some day like the Telcom industry in 2001.
More like they smell money, not blood. Funny that the first lawsuit was filed about 8 hours after announcing the beginning of PIII trials. Given that drugs that make it to phase III have a good chance (I've heard upwards of 80%, but I'm no expert) of approval, my read on this is actually positive; lawyers may be greedy, silt-sucking bottom-feeders, but they are not stupid, and know that its better to sue a rich man than a poor man. Clearly, they look upon Vertex as a potential cash cow, and are positioning themselves to a slice of the pie when this puppy takes off. Perhaps they know something we don't?
Of course, the case has no merit. I'm too lazy to go digging, but as I recall, many of the 70+% SVR projections came from the analysts; when more modest rates came to light, the price fell. If they suffered, it was because of their own greed and stupidity, not collusion on the part of Vertex.
Read the allegations by the second law firm:
>> The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company, and certain of its officers and/or directors, violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially false and misleading statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities and causing Class members to overpay for the securities.<<
The company did NOT issue "various materially false and misleading statements". Read Form 8K below.
The true reasons we had a bull run from late June to October last year have to do with a bullish Barrons' article by Michael Kahn, an upgrade by Stifel Nicolaus and two other Outperform ratings:
28-Sep-07___ BMO Capital Markets Initiated Outperform
8-Aug-07___ Cowen & Co Initiated Outperform
26-Jun-07___ Stifel Nicolaus Upgrade Hold Buy
There was no release of PROVE data between data at EASL 2007 (April) and AASLD 2007 (November).
The true reason for the sharp drop in early November was caused by misplaced and overblown market perception of competition from the likes of Roche, ITMN, SGP and even Alinia, diarrhea drug.
This perception is well summarized by Feierstein in his blog (Nov. 5, 2007); SGP was thought to start a Phase III of Boceprevir just about now, but in reality the long dosing periods (24 weeks of Boce + additional 20-24 wks of SOC) makes their Phase II Sprint trial may not conclude until 2009. Boce is not as potent as Telaprevir, and the dosing period has to be longer. Compare their dosing against TVR's 8 wk dosing in Phase III. Market potential for Boce is very limited. Analysts need to learn more.