Ok, my problem is that this sounds like a gee we already know that Telcyta failed in at least one trail and we are hoping to save the day by announcing positive results for 1 of the 3 trials. Makes me nervous, wouldn't buy it, but I probably wouldn't sell it either. However, I wouldn't count on the stock going up if they only announce a 1/3 success rate.
Let's face it, if they announced positive results separately for three trials, assuming positive results exist, the stock price and shareholders would get a much bigger bang for their buck
Thanks for the feedback and the advice. I was thinking mostly of investing IRAs in H&Q and playing with more risky individual stocks in a taxable account (which works better for tax purposes, including if big losses come occassionally).
go to http://www.etfconnect.com/ they'll show returns, holdings, and give you a link to H&Q, look at the Powershares Biotech and Genomic (PBE) go to www.powershares.com
be careful with the H7Q closed end funds because they have a mandatory distribution rate of 10% per annum, they pay out both dividends and principal, and allow you to reinvest, if in a taxable account it can be tedious, jmho
Thanks for the recommendation on HQH. You are a real asset to the message board community. Could you tell me what HQH top 5 investments are or where I can look to find them? I am ready to lower my individual "bets" and to save days, weeks, years of my life by not following my individual stocks so closely. TIA
"my problem is that this sounds like a gee we already know that Telcyta failed in at least one trail..."
One big problem with your theory - you have no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.
You're clueless. It's just a conservative move to get all trial data in front of them before the business decisions are made.
I finally had time to listen to the jp morgan
cc and I never heard any explanation of why
they are unblinding at the sametime - perhaps
this was discussed in the Q/A session. Anyone
there for it?
I read a note from Prudential on fidelity that
(according to pru) they are unblinded and announcing
after the last study completes. That would make more sense.
Both Lehman and prudential seem to be some
what negative on outcomes of these trials.
I would really like to buy a current Needham
report if anyone knows where to obtain such.
I thought their analyst was pretty pragmatic.
Everyone already knows that assist-2 is damaged
goods - it used iressa as a benchmark for
2nd line treatment rather than Tarceva.
Assist 3 was basically a supporting trial that
would enhance the label for ovarian cancer
IF the assist 1 trial is successful.
Assist 1 is the one that counts.
So, if they are releasing results simultaneously
it really won't matter as assist 1 is going
to be first study completed (by deduction
given prior statements on assist-2 enrollment
and assist-3 completion).
Telk has fast track and an SPA for ovarian.
yada yada yada. It's all good, just
not as good as before.
Iressa is very well studied and it will serve as a good standard. As long as ASSIST 2 trial documents EGFR protein kinase mutation or skin rash status, it will be OK. Oncologists including TJ Lynch of MGH and Harvard Med have high opinions about Iressa. Last year, Lynch said that he was hopeful that Iressa would eventually be resurrected by FDA. Subpopulations of NSCLC tumors(Asian or tumors with EGFR pk mutations) respond remarkably well. The response rates among Japanese and Chinese patients are as high as 60-80%. The overall survival rate is comparable to Tarceva for the subpopution with pk mutations. A problem I see is that the size of the trial is only 200 and it will include only about 16 patients (8%) with the mutation.
The real killer application of Telcyta is the triplet or doublet combo against NSCLC, of course. The small studies announced last May
were remarkable. One of the study was led by Lynch mentioned above.