Z160 is in the books...done and burried. A lesson to be learned about making too many assumptions ooer the importance of the "orphan drug designation" and just how much the FDA knew about Z160. Should also teach that rat studies are just not the optimal model for pain. Downside of Z944 is that it is unproven and untested technology i.e. no other channel blockers of its class on the market to the best of my knowledge. The positve side is that a small...very small test in humans generated positve results. More importantly, the results were dose dependent which also removes a layer of uncertainty. While the human trial may have been blind and placebo affects can rule the roost, it is hard to question the relationship between dosage and response as a placebo effect. So, for those willing to hold a while longer, in my opinion, the preliminary data of Z944 is more compelling than the preliminary data on Z160. The sad part of this is that Merck probably had more data than was made available to Zalicus indicating that bioavilability was not the only caveat to Z160. They probably bailed for reasons related to efficacy as well.
Agreed. I have a sneaking suspicion that Merck dropped the project on Z160 for more reasons than just bioavailability. It could be (and just spit-balling here) that Z spent years reformulating a drug that Merck already knew was destined to fail. If not, why did Merck not continue to engage the new Zalicus if bioavailability was the only issue and Z had a plan to address this issue? Still, tuff decisions will not always pan out. This one did not.
Z944 may become wildly successful, but I'm not sure that helps Zalicus investors. They don't have the resources to develop it, and why would any capital venture company invest in a company that failed as spectacularly as Zalicus has, If they do, they'd likely require huge dilution for those who already own the stock. The best thing for stockholders is for the company to sell - and do it quickly, imo. Allow the long-term owners who didn't sell to get something back rather than sucking the remaining resources dry paying salaries to those who led the failed efforts.
Possibly. But you should look to Keryx before doing so. Keryx failed miserably on their CA drug perifosine and the stock got pummeled in the process. Dropped...from +/- $5.5 to +/- $1.75. Of course all the same accusations came out but those who stayed through the trials on another other drug in their pipeline (Zerenex) benefitted well (Current price $12.50 high $13 with more to run). No matter how you look at it, these companies are risky. My concern at present is another RS if the stock cannot hold $1/sh. Hopefully, Z944 will be the ace in the hole.
I have't sold a single share, it just did not make sense to bail at 26m market cap.
I think for those who will wait and average down at good time there will be a chance to get out without a loss before z944 p2 results next yearr and IF z944 works we should not worry, this will be 25$ stock.JMHO
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I hate to give advice...but...
First, NWBO will have to undergo some dilution to raise money before long.
Second, immunotherapy is not new ...it has been around for many years with limited success. I believe the only comparator is Provenge for treating rather than preventing prostate cancer. There are a number of vaccine treatments for preventing CA, but these fall into a separate class relative to DCVax. Of note, my reading indicates that DCVax has already failed in prolonging life in prostate CA patients.Granted the CA cell types are different i.e. prostate VS brain, and should be considered when making a final decision to invest.
Finally, the PII data on DCVax for treating brain CA is interesting, but I have been unable to find anything other than 50% of treated patients exhibiting 8-80+ months of life. I did not see the placebo results on that study (but also did not look very hard). Also, it appears that DCVax delayed the time to disease recurrence and increased survival, but this was predominantly in patients with stable disease at the outset of the trial which could suggest the treatment has limited efficacy in treating active, metastatic disease. This could severely reduce the size of the treatment group.
Anyway, for me, I have been burned one too may times investing in cancer treatments and I plan to stay clear. If you plan to invest, a cautionary approach would be most prudent.
Hope those tidbits help.
Zalicus may find partner for Z944, "Six Degrees Of Separation_GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Swoops In On Zalicus (ZLCS) In New Calcium Channel Modulator Partnership Ventures Sierra World Equity Review"