you notice there are always people predicting a pullback after something goes up alot...in this case you look at the market cap and compare it to relatively positioned companies...considering idenix is exactly the same as achillion or very close and their lowest market cap was 600m why would it go lower than it was yesterday
therefore the shorts were simply not evaluating it with common sense
As this study has been physician sponsored, we need to understand certain time constraints and extensions that come with this partnered approach and as such now expect to announce the final results from the study in the current second quarter.”
trial is being done at 27 different centers so the data analysis may be very time consuming even though the last patient in was in early march...data is in june
tliuall: "I doubt this will happen. They missed the deadlines all the time in the past. Why would this time different?"
yes exactly this is just the rosy projections the company has made over and over again
enrollment was obviously very slow so they started opening trial centers in south africa
my guess would be q1 2015 for final efficacy data and then starting two trials in liver and myeloma at sometime in mid 2015 where huge valuation creation occurs in 2016/2017
isnt there a minimum dosing period for each patient and havent they predicted timelines in the past to be much shorter than expected
It is expected that the study will enroll six to nine patients to complete cohort 4.
therefore its highly highly unlikely to be finished in the first half needing another six patients potentially to finish the cohort plus follow up for efficacy data
no they wouldnt but the market reacts to press releases with topline data not asco conference abstracts at a scientific conference
wonder what the scoop is im aware that had positive mood, erectile dysfunction and trending bone mineral density and they leveled with the fda on three times a day dosing to eliminate any doubt
if there is a crl im very curious on what it states as the reason
i think they had the results for the first trial for a long time so they designed the second trial around localized disease only so there would be no negative survival benefit seen in the systemic disease category and the same halved rate of hearing loss
obviously fda would never approve a drug that affected survival negatively thats why they did localized for the siopel 6 trial which should still hit significance without any notable difference in survival