Let's keep our eye on the ball. Clovis and Ariad are focusing on two different groups. Clovis has a "second-line therapy for EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients who become resistant to EGFR-directed therapy due to the emergence of the T790M secondary mutation and potentially as a first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated NSCLC." Ariad is targeting "ALK-positive NSCLC patients who are resistant to crizotinib." No, our competitor is Norvartis with its entry to treat ALK-positive NSCLC patients, LDK378. Not surprisingly, Norvartis is ahead of us and is projecting going to the FDA for approval of LDK378 in 2014. What is poor Ariad to do? Play the "best in class" card, naturally. But, really folks, based on in vitro studies of relative inhibitory concentrations in cell cultures? Or based on limited Phase I results in a few patients? At this point the "best in class" card has a hollow ring. Can we leave the "best in class" card on the shelf until after Phase II or Phase III results are known for 113 and LDK378 and meaningful comparisons can be made. No? I didn't think so. Biotechs sometimes try to tantalize investors and can over-reach with hints of possibly greater clinical activities, oh say for example, activity against the T790 mutation, or activity against brain metastases, based on a limited number of early data points. But for now, I believe the word I'm looking for is "premature." If 113 is demonstrated to have activities against the T790 mutation and/or brain metastases in larger treatment groups, then "best in class" becomes meaningful and may be the mechanism to take the air out of Norvartis.
These are the best comments anybody has posted on this board for a long time. You should be posting on the IHUB board not on this board. most of the postes on this board are useless comments and insults and never anything relative to ARIAD.