One other important note here. The wild card in trying to decide when to get into this stock (for me) is just these ongoing trials we're talking about in this thread. I don't have much confidence in the original approach here--that is shutting down HSP90. So I wouldn't be at all surprised to see more unsuccessful results there.
I'm in for STA-12-8666, not the earlier science. I think that drug conjugate will work and work very well, based on the preclinical data. But this stock could take a beating on any poor results from the lead drug (Ganetespib).
If that happens, I will likely average down.
The future of this company, if it succeeds, will be here:
Shutting down HSP90 hasn't been very effective in the models studied. That's why this company's stock is in the toilet. And here is why that might be a great opportunity.
What the average investor doesn't know is what's very different in this company's pipeline from what has been tested, and why HSP90 is a fairly unique target for a drug conjugate.
Drug conjugates use a targeting moiety to deliver the payload that attacks the cancer. Most of them use antibodies for targeting. Those are expensive and difficult to manufacture. STA-12-8666 is a fusion protein/drug conjugate. There will be a lot more profit in it, if it works out.
The early work with this compound has gone particularly well. Scientists tend to shy away from words like "extraordinary" or "remarkable" or "startling," but you will find these terms sprinkled throughout the preclinical conclusions on STA-12-8666
The key will be the linker, which binds the payload to the targeting moiety. That is designed to detach when the compound reaches the cancer. Too loose, and it comes off early and the drug doesn't get there. Too tight and it never comes off and the drug won't be activated. I'm going to focus my research there now. But if the preclinical work is any indication (and it may be) they would appear to be on very solid ground in this department.
Fair disclosure, I own this stock and I'm long. Also, I've been very wrong before about the science of some biotech company or other. For example, I thought Zalicus had a real shot with their calcium channel blocker pain drug and I was 180 degrees off there. So consider this post and whatever I might post to follow with all that in mind.
Good luck to all investors in the success of this company. It's could be a nice opportunity to make some money while someone does something very important in cancer drug development.
Yeah, I kinda doubt you're really laughing. You're short SNTA, aren't you? You sweating is what you're actually doing. Hope you get the margin call soon.
Isonep is an injectable, isn't it? Also something of an unknown quantity. We don't have any clinical data on what inhibiting S1P on AMD. Could be same, better, or worse than existing therapies, no?
Isonep data not expected until Q2 2015.
I can almost smell the desperation through my monitor. Whoever is paying her is a lunatic.
You're going to lose a lot of money shorting this stock ahead of the data due in April. Baaaaaad idea.
With any luck it's a leak. I'm hoping for info on the FDA hold being cleared very soon. If news comes out tomorrow, we'll know that was it.
There's no doubt that Dr. Frost is impressed and is putting some skin in the game too. That's the right read on the whole matter.
But RXi is not listed as one of OPKO's strategic investments on their website for a reason. We invested in their tech, not the other way around. (Except to the extent that Frost is making a personal bet on Rxi.)
The only other thing to understand here is that Frost owns 20% of RXi now, and that's put him in a good position to buy Rxi out (at a premium, of course). Which would give him all his previous RNAi IP right back again. Not a bad position to be in.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
The Opko deal is an inlicence deal from the POV of Rxi. We pay THEM, and only IF we succeed in developing and commercializing applications related to their patents.
In terms of this particular deal then, they are the tail. We are the dog. Nothing they do on their end can make us succeed at turning their patents into products. So nothing they do or say should ever affect our stock price.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
With all the necessary caveats that apply to animal models and what they can or can't tell us regarding human application of a therapy or drug, here's a good study to check out--
search for the terms: hypertrophic scarring CTGF sisco
You'll find at the top of your results list an abstract of the study "Antisense inhibition of connective tissue growth factor (CTGF/CCN2) mRNA limits hypertrophic scarring without affecting wound healing in vivo."
This study is good proof of concept. This standard rabbit model (which has been used for preclinical work on human scarring in a number of studies) is reliably predictive. Again, with the usual caveats. Weird #$%$ happens from time to time with animal models.
I have read the full paper. In this study, the hypertrophic scarring was reduced significantly by a 55% knockdown of the same gene, i.e., CTGF, targeted by RXi. That compares very favorably to the RX-109 knockdown rate of up to 50%.
Interesting to note that in vitro knockdown rate for the antisense agent used here was 92%. The in vivo, rate was therefore much lower (probably a good thing for reasons well addressed on this board already). And yet scar reduction was still very good. One timing strategy for injection (similar to one being used by RXi in current PII design) reduced scar height by 53%.
All very good signs
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Cobra, just explained why and how you were wrong. You wrote that you were disappointed in the 50% knock down rate. Cobra just pointed out that it would be unproductive to have a higher rate for this indication.
What's your game?
If your'e "quite disappointed" in the latest data, it's because you don't understand them. That's all. Do a bit more research my friend. You'll feel better.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Your point about PI trials being safety trials is accurate. I've wondered, though, if we don't get a little something more from incision investigations like these.
Normally PI is done with healthy volunteers. But you can't do that if you're trying to assess the safety of wound closure. You have to make an incision. And that will or will not leave a scar to some degree. No way around it.
We already have pictures and analysis from an earlier PI that shows some scar reduction. I don't know if that was a secondary outcome of that trial. If anyone does, please chime in.
What I'm still very curious about is whether scar reduction as such is a secondary outcome of the two current trials. Again, the photos are going to be "captured and assessed by a masked, independent, expert panel."
Assessed for what? Just wound closure, or also scar reduction? It would be helpful to know with some certainty if that is at all possible.
Maybe this is a question for the company, as this detail surely isn't meant to be obscured from the public.