Doesn't HIF1a influence VEGF expression?
Way too early to be excited about this drug. Comparisons are to the older prodrug of tenofovir--newer prodrugs also being developed by Gilead are more potent and yield less free tenofovir than the old one, too. Little bearing on ARWR, IMO.
Dear Henry: The observation of integrated DNA in carcinomas is different than the appreciation that integrated DNA is widespread in what is, after all, pretty healthy tissue. Main point is, they can get 99+% reduction with a single dose if they have a clear target. Should be similar for the many other targets out there: the sky is the limit.
Dear Carrix--I concur! I think the recent data explains WHY we are seeing such modest responses in some of these cohorts. This understanding lets us be more optimistic about the response of other targets--a big de-risking exercise.
However, the fact remains--ARC 520 is underperforming in the population used in the clinical trial, using the criterion we selected prior to the trial. This may hurt the share price for a bit.
Kudos to our clinical team for finding out what was going on, and modifying our approach accordingly.
Is a new target. I think this is the "seminal" part of their program. It was known that cccDNA integrated into the host chromosome in Hepatocellular carcinomas, but I don't believe it was known to occur so much in patients in the early stages of their disease. ARWR may well be way ahead of the competition due to this finding.
The results released today further validate the company, in my opinion: we have our 1 log reduction in antigen, we have evidence of a clinically relevant response (in chimps), still no tox (HUGE!), we have evidence of excellent scientific acumen and execution in the ARWR team. The reduction in antigen and absence of tox are extensible throughout the RNAi platform. Couple that with ability to target sites other than the liver, and to administer sub-Q....
Short term price fluctuations aside, and notwithstanding dire rants about manipulation, I feel more and more comfortable with my investment!
Dear Holdencf. Off-topic!
Thanks. I have used lots of animals in my research, almost all rats and mice, but I do think chimps should only be used in very rare cases--they are just too sentient. I cannot support giving them a disease, for example. So, we will just have to do without. I think the use of actual humans should be encouraged.
Here is a story: we were trying to coordinate with a lab in Liberia that had chimps, to study HBV. I remarked to the guy trying to set it up that I thought Liberia was a bit unsettled, he replied that Charles Taylor was a reasonable guy, etc. etc. As it turns out, the facility was raided by bandits. They shot the animal handler (in front of his wife--these are NOT nice people), and then ate the chimps. End of story!
Sub-Q will be a challenge with dose of 3-4 mk/kg: that is a lot of stuff to inject under the skin: one tends to get a big, red, tender bump.
Dear Wcooper--I like bourbonisbest's analysis. I do worry a bit that ARWR has set expectations very high. We will have to wait for the data. It will be something un-expected, and not just about FC, in my opinion. Seminal means that it will lead to lots of other research and a new way of thinking about Hep B, or therapy. As an aside, the chimp data are probably going to be the last of their kind--it will not be possible to use chimps in research anymore. As for the stock price, I am in this for the long-haul, and so I should not be bothered by short-term blips, but still....
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Thank you Jones. He seems to have caught it early, but it is still a very grave situation. His first post-operative CAT scan was clear, so that is a big hurdle to get over. Thanks again.
Dear Not for rookies: Since you are so skillful and so experienced, and such a valued representative of the 'smart money', I must assume that you had the foresight to short in the 20's, when the company's prospects were even more uncertain than now. No? missed the boat? Do you really think $7 is a good price to short?
You may be right, and the company is just a great, big, pathetic, scam, without any real value, like all pharmaceutical companies. Or, you could be wrong, and the shares will be really hard to get in about two weeks. I don't think money can be either smart or stupid, but I do know something of drug development in both antivirals and cancer, and I have a nice little bet that ARWR will do very well in the next few years.
See hparch? That is what it sounds like when I don't like a person! (I hate empty, Trumpish boasting).
Dear hparch--I like you fine. Was i unfairly critical earlier?--I apologize! Things are about to get VERY interesting!
If the AD is as seminal as we hope, and if the stock price is rising going into it, how will those poor little shorts be able to cover? My heart bleeds for them. Truly bleeds. Really.