google Chardan and you'll see some pretty shady stuff involving this firm. Short selling violations, specialists in questionable Chinese companies buying into US reverse mergers, and more.
Roche has a phase 3 complement D inhibitor being tested for Dry AMD...
Lampalizumab is being investigated to determine its effect on the progression of GA associated with advanced AMD. Lampalizumab is an antigen-binding fragment (Fab) of a humanised, monoclonal antibody directed against complement factor D. Complement factor D is a rate-limiting enzyme involved in the activation of the alternative complement pathway (ACP), a component of the immune system. Genetic polymorphisms as well as hyperactivity of the ACP have been implicated in the development of AMD including GA.
And you must have proof then, Mac, that a 700 mg dose of 3422 that achieves a 4.6 viral kill at day 14 is somehow inferior to sovaldi? NOT! Here's what Steve Giardino on SA had to say:" ACH-3422 stacks up well against Sovaldi in GT1 albeit taking somewhat longer to achieve the same -4.6 log10 knockdown. However, continued viral elimination and suppression are evident out to 14 days of dosing, without any evidence of rebound (unlike with MRK-3682), suggesting potent and durable responses will result in 6-week duration regimens, especially in combination with the very fast-acting ACH-3102.
Effectively one should dose until rebound occurs to determine mean maximum viral reduction. Arguably, 3422 could have achieved over 5.0 log10 reduction out to 21 days from the state of the curve at 15 days, however, patients just weren't dosed with 3422 as a monotherapy for this long. However, no rebound at 15 days combined with an accelerated reduction from 14-15 days is an encouraging element showing strength of the treatment to inhibit replication and continue viral elimination.
If 3422 data in GT3 show an improvement over Sovaldi via these indirect though compelling comparisons, that would suggest the high probability 3422 with the addition of 3102 can take significant future market share away from GILD in this genotype. This is already a significant possibility in GT1 patients because of the addition of the best-in-class, highly-potent ACH-3102.
They may have only made $2 billion sidelurker, but ALXN is a 34 billion dollar company by market cap, so that should tell you what the market thinks about ALXN's growth potential.
He has no idea if sovaldi is more efficacious than 3422, and neither do we! That was my point. He states that 3422 has lower bioavailability than sovaldi and takes a longer time (14 days versus 7) to achieve the same log kill, implying that this fact makes sovaldi superior, with zero evidence that the 3422 PK profile makes a whit of difference in efficacy. And then shorts like you come along and REHASH what he said as if all the facts are now on the table. You remind me of Fox News!
Well sidelurker, so you looked at the total volume today and called it all institutional money exiting? So then yesterday, when we had 20 million in volume, must have been 4X the institutional money flowing out? I'm thinking maybe half of it were shorts covering perhaps? dude, you shorted AAVL at $34.81 and it's now sitting at $38.83 on its way to $40. And now you are parsing volume to determine institutional buying and selling? I can't keep up!
" the Intrinsic value of Achillion with milestone etc...would be up to 1.1 Billion."
How did you figure that? By the milestones alone? Can't do that.
Small Pharma is good, but this statement is at best partially correct: "...but we have seen from Figure 1 that ACH 3422 is slower at clearing the virus than Sovaldi..." It was slower by one week (and no one has proven, either in monotherapy or in DAA combination therapy, if a longer tail on the efficacy has any bearing on mean max viral reduction. Here's what the Deutche analyst said at the time: "At 7, 10, 14 days,the 700mg 3422 dose showed a 3.4, 4.2, and 4.8 mean max reduction respectively. The 10 day reduction for 3422 of 4.2 is roughly in-line with IDIX nuke at day 7 but under sofosbuvir of 4.6 at day 7. Whereas a couple days reduction difference in depth of reduction could be meaningful in monotherapy, Achillion will pursue a combination with another potent agent like their NS5A. 3 of 6 patients did achieve an undetectable status which also supports 3422 working in typical HCV genotype-1 patients. This nuke does have a different PK profile from other nukes as referenced by mgmt and looking at comparative data," continued the analyst."
what Small Pharma also said about 335 is this: ""AL-335...is a phosphothioamidate where an oxygen has been replaced with a sulfur....the phosphothioamidates do not have a proven safety record in the clinic so there is certainly a good deal of risk with the JNJ nucleotide." For our sakes of course we want 335 to succeed, but I won't be shocked if it turns out that 3422-3102 is a safer combo that 335-3102. And if it is, JNJ didn't pay enough for ACHN, but I still believe given all circumstances this is a pretty good deal for ACHN, provided this gets their drugs to market significantly faster. In my mind I continue to belie that the way JNJ gets on the market a year to two faster is by finding a svr12 100% at 6 weeks (4 weeks of course would be a blowout). Either of those should give them breakthrough therapy and speed approval.
by the way mac, thank you for the reminder about 2200 also coming from Alios. I had forgotten about it. We shall see soon enough how this all plays out.
I'm not sure at all about 335. I never said anything about the likelihood of 335 working well. I speculated that JNJ perhaps liked 335 better on paper than 3422 (since they paid $1.8 billion for it), but wanted the missing 3102 piece.
ALS-335 (Alios' nuc now JNJ's) and ACH-3422 (ACHN's nuc) are very similar drugs chemically. They are both prodrugs of a uridine-based nucleotide analog, if I understood correctly. I haven't seen any preclinical efficacy on 335, other than it's pan-genotype with a long half-life. JNJ must have decided that the clinical profile on 335 looks better than 3422, or, perhaps they will do parallel tests of 335+olysio+3012 and 3422+olysio+3102. I'm speculating that JNJ looked at Achillion last summer when they were also looking at Alios, and decided that Alios' nucs looked better on paper, plus they had both a uridine and a guanosine based nuc. (Guanosine based was the same Base as the BMY nuc blow-up). In September they announced the Alios acquisition. That was before the data had come out on 3102 - in November Achillion announced the 8 week svr4 100% 3102 plus sofosbuvir, and on Dec 22 they announced the 6 week svr4 100% sofo plus 3102. Obviously, that got JNJ's attention.
JNJ already had the NS3/NS4A PI piece with Olysio - having generated over a billion dollars on it pre-Harvoni, and then their sales went down the tubes post-Harvoni. So 3102 was the missing piece, now that they had acquired Alios. I think the deal we just saw was based around 3102, perhaps discounting 3422 and not because it isn't effective, but because JNJ had just invested $1.8 billion on someone else's nucs that maybe looked better to them. I still hope that a 3422+3102+olysio is in the cards - would be very interesting to see if 3422 can beat ALS-335. Meanwhile, I think binary is on to something with the Complement D franchise. I think Desh went through this logic: spend $500 more on HepC with no sales for 2 years, or develop the complement D line into a multi-drug mega-blockbuster franchise while getting $500-$1 billion a year from HepC royalties.
"I would rather they have just gone through another secondary without a collaboration to raise funds to push forward Factor D as at least everything would still be wholly-owned." They would have done that if time weren't a factor. As the shorts have correctly said for months, time to market is a factor here, and was a big factor in the short thesis. The only thing they got wrong is whether ACHN has enough time to get anything to market - they didn't think so, but in a collaboration they are going to shave 1-2 years off the timeline.
So the situation for ACHN may have been this: "HepC is a cure market and 90% of the money will be made in the next X number of years.We need to get to market as fast as possible.
On the other hand, our Complement D program could be worth a billion in annual revenues by itself - which is worth $4-5 billion in a buyout in a couple of years. Add in the collaboration revenue and this looks like a better deal long term for ACHN than an outright buyout right now."
I think binary may have this nailed. Desh is going for bigger fish.