Another under-$10 stock that looks poised for a sharp move higher is Dolan (DM), a provider of necessary business information and professional services to the legal, financial and real estate sectors in the U.S. This stock has been hammered by the sellers so far in 2013, with shares off huge by 80%.
If you take a look at the chart for Dolan Company, you'll notice that this stock has been downtrending badly over the last two months, with shares plunging lower from its high of $3 a share to its recent low of 66 cents per share. During that downtrend, shares of DM have been consistently making lower highs and lower lows, which is bearish technical price action. That move has now pushed shares of DM into oversold territory, since its current relative strength index reading is 20. Oversold can always get more oversold, but it's also an area where a stock can make a powerful bounce higher from.
Market players should now look for long-biased trades in DM if it manages to break out above Thursday's high of 77 cents per share and then above some more near-term overhead resistance at 80 cents per share with high volume. Look for a sustained move or close above those levels with volume that hits near or above its three-month average action of 321,823 shares. If that breakout hits soon, then DM will set up for a possible powerful bounce higher that could easily take this stock back above $1 to $1.20 a share.
Traders can look to buy DM off weakness to anticipate that breakout and simply use a stop that sits right around some key near-term support levels at 71 cents to 66 cents per share. One can also buy DM off strength once it starts to clear those breakout levels with volume and then simply use a stop that sits a comfortable percentage from your entry point.
Could drop to 55 cents on tax loss selling. If it did (with no more negative news), I think I would double down.
23% of float
ARIAD Announces Positive Opinion by the European Medicines Agency on the Continued Availability of Iclusig in Patients with Leukaemias
7:46a ET November 22, 2013 (Business Wire)
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARIA) today announced adoption of a positive opinion by the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on the continued availability of Iclusig(R) (ponatinib) in the EU for use in patients in its authorized indications. Following its review of updated clinical-trial data on Iclusig, the CHMP made a series of recommendations on measures to help minimize the risk of occlusive vascular events in patients taking Iclusig. The authorized indications of Iclusig, as approved in July 2013, are as follows:
-- The treatment of adult patients with chronic phase, accelerated phase or blast phase chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) who are resistant to dasatinib or nilotinib; who are intolerant to dasatinib or nilotinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate; or who have the T315I mutation, or
-- The treatment of adult patients with Philadelphia-chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL) who are resistant to dasatinib; who are intolerant to dasatinib and for whom subsequent treatment with imatinib is not clinically appropriate; or who have the T315I mutation.
Well we had good news on Friday when the EU ruled to allow the drug on the market. Now the market is anticipating the FDA will do the same. Remember this stock was $20+ recently, so this move up is really only the beginning.
Ariad executives are working with FDA regulators to come up with a strategy for reducing the drug’s risks and an amended label restricting Iclusig prescriptions to patients who can most benefit and for whom other drugs have failed.
More than 1,000 people in the United States were treated with Iclusig obtained commercially from January through October, when sales were suspended. Since then, Ariad’s stock has plunged and the company has laid off 160 workers, about 40 percent of its US staff, in a bid to conserve cash until the drug can be returned to the market.
“The most important thing for us is to make sure there’s access to this drug for patients who need it,” said Ariad chief scientific officer Timothy P. Clackson. But while Iclusig remains on the market in some European countries, Ariad is no longer being paid to distribute it in the United States under the FDA’s emergency program.
Hans Loland, a 45-year-old computer systems analyst from Woodinville, Wash., who has organized an Internet group for those diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia, said patients are hoping Ariad and the FDA can quickly reach agreement.
“We support the FDA and the job they have to do,” Loland said. “But we want a balanced approach. Our concern is the longer this is dragged out, there are patients who are going to lose access to the drug and there are doctors who may not prescribe it to patients who could benefit.”
Iclusig patients echo that sentiment. “I believe in this drug, it saved my life,” said Beth Galliart, an executive assistant at a Silicon Valley financial firm who was diagnosed with leukemia in 2008 and began taking Iclusig in a clinical trial the following year. “It means I got to meet my nephew. But I could wake up tomorrow morning and it could be taken away.”
FDA officials are often torn between their dual missions of assuring that lifesaving treatments get to patients and guarding against potentially deadly health risks. More than a dozen patients have died after taking Iclusig in clinical studies involving more than 500 patients worldwide, according to the FDA.
In a statement accompanying its drug safety alert Oct. 31, the agency cautioned that “at this time, the FDA can not identify a dose level or exposure duration that is safe for patients.”
But responding to the rising tide of advocacy, they also have designated employees to listen to — and try to resolve — patients’ concerns. They also are quick to respond to feedback from doctors.
“We understand the need for access to products for the treatment of serious and life-threatening diseases and that there are some patients who are currently receiving [Iclusig] who will require continued drug access,” Pazdur, director of the hematology and oncology products office at the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, wrote Nov. 5 in response to the letter from 23 leukemia specialists.
Dr. Harry P. Erba, professor of internal medicine and director of the hematologic malignancy program at the University of Alabama in Birmingham, who wrote the letter signed by the specialists, said it was not intended to dispute the FDA safety warning. But, he said, “there was a sense of urgency that patients who are on the drug now not be allowed to relapse” because they were suddenly denied access to Iclusig.
Some patients using Iclusig — which cost about $115,000 a year — say their health improved dramatically because of the treatment, and are not deterred by recent evidence linking it to increased incidence of blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes.
“The risks outlined by the FDA are real,” said Stone, a Harvard Medical School professor who chairs the Alliance’s leukemia committee, a group of doctors and health professionals studying new treatments. “But there are certain patients for whom there are no good alternatives. So we think there’s a risk-benefit ratio that favors continuing giving them the drug.”
Similar arguments have arisen around other medicines that carry significant risks, but also work remarkably well for some people. In March, breast cancer patients and supporters picketed a Cambridge hotel where FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg spoke, calling for faster approval of new drugs.
Outside the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s annual convention in Boston last year, a group demonstrated against long delays in approving the breast cancer therapy Kadcyla.
And last week, more than a half dozen patients and advocates testified at an FDA advisory panel meeting, contending that severely ill multiple sclerosis patients and their doctors should be able to determine whether the benefits of the experimental drug Lemtrada — made by Cambridge biotech Genzyme — outweigh its safety risks.
“If one of your family members had MS, wouldn’t you want them to have a choice?” Connecticut patient Melissa Burdick asked medical specialists and FDA staffers at the Silver Spring, Md., meeting. “We, as patients, deserve the right to have a choice of therapy.”
Within hours after sales of a powerful new leukemia drug were stopped last month because of potentially lethal side effects, loosely organized groups of doctors and patients — determined to keep getting a medicine they depend on — sprang into action across the country.
They began making calls and writing letters to regulators, seeking assurance that people already taking Iclusig, developed by Cambridge’s Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc., would have uninterrupted access to the treatment while Food and Drug Administration officials pored over new clinical data on its toxic side effects and haggled with Ariad about revised wording on a warning label.
“I was terrified because this drug is my lifeline,” said Karen Linscott, a 48-year-old teacher from Eden Prairie, Minn. Her form of blood cancer — chronic myeloid leukemia — has been in remission for two and a half years since she began taking Iclusig as part of a clinical trial in Ann Arbor, Mich.
Soon after the drug was pulled from the market on Oct. 31, Linscott and other patients appealed to an FDA patient liaison in an hour-long conference call. “They had to hear from the patients and the doctors,” she said.
Meanwhile, Dr. Richard M. Stone, director of the adult leukemia program at Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, joined 22 other blood cancer specialists to sign a Nov. 1 letter to FDA oncology chief Richard Pazdur. It called on the agency to speed up a process allowing patients who had been buying the drug commercially to get approval to keep receiving it.
Within three days, the new program was in effect.
The successful lobbying effort underscores the growing role of patient advocates in a drug monitoring process once seen as the exclusive province of regulators. In this and other recent cases, advocates have contended that physicians should be permitted to prescribe drugs with serious side effects to willing patients who have few — or no — other options to treat diseases that are often fatal.