Take a look at some big and super-big oil companies. Their declines are, after all, where most of the money vanished from the market. Two comments: first, they seem to have declined less than Incyte Second, they seem to be stabilizing.
For the first point, I recall that "When elephants battle, the grass suffers" The second point encourages my constitutional optimism.
Yeah, there are smaller oil/gas companies doing a lot worse. I just don't think they're as much of a force pushing the broader market.
Yahoo is being VERY difficult. This is my FIFTH try.
Important countries listing ruxo in pharmacopeias: Denmark, Spain. Important ones I can't confirm: Italy, Netherlands. France approves on a national level, but has regional "home rule"
N.I.C.E. revisions are routine. UK should allow Jakavi for MF after the long-term follow-up data previewed at ASH 2015 get journal publication.
The list of countries where Jakavi is approved is not, of course, Incyte's to comment on.
You can comment on Motley fool articles again, but it sure looks like you have to link to a Facebook account. My contact information isn't exactly something that would need to be redacted from Hillary's emails, but making it THAT public in front of what can be presumed to be a swarm of Geroniacs seems like a bad deal.
The word that got censored, by the way, was a word for a bizarre supernatural creature that is a rather obsolete racial insult. Reminds me of when the first name of the chairman of Lehman at the time of its collapse got censored (in retrospect, THAT one almost makes sense). Hmm, if I talk about dancing a jig (word could be followed by -saw puzzle, in case you don't see it) will that get censored?
This is the year of cash. There may be some reaction to Jakafi sales, but I don't expect a result very far from what's generally anticipated. Janus 1 is the #$%$ in the room and too close to speculate about. I've already explained at great length why I give it a 75% chance of success. I'd give it another 10% or so chance of a favorable but not statistically significant result, which on the one hand would let Janus 2 have a shot at putting PaCa on-label, but on the other hand would incur the considerable expense of finishing Janus 2 with no guarantee of a payoff. (The estimates of the money at stake there that I have seen are laughably low--the key to selling is not how much it lengthens life [most likely benefit a shade under a month] but how much better patients taking it look and feel) If it is announced that some phase 2s of ruxo combinations addressing high-prevalence cancers are continuing post mid-trial evaluation, it could have some benefit (comparable to the harm from CRC). We won't soon get an explicit story about how epac will make money. Lilly is unlikely to talk about bari pricing before approval.
The only result I can see having real importance is the revenue from Jakafi sales. Dealing through specialty pharmacies obscures the story, but large/medium/small should show through. Large is over 65% YoY increase, medium is 55-65% and small is below 55%. Management pretends not to have a handle on breakout between MF and PV, but a large increase can only come from accelerating PV adoption. A small increase would leave open the possibility of the market beginning to saturate.
_Pace_ the reaction to the CRC news, nothing phase 2 means much (unless some partner is over-powering one in hope of approval of a combination without a phase 3). I DO hope we'll get some verbiage on mid-trial evaluations, and a one-time snapshot of what has and hasn't gone through such would be a nice touch (If management doesn't volunteer the snapshot, they probably won't answer if asked for it). Simply a list of phase 2s expected to complete this coming Q would be welcome (even having to search clinicaltrials is an annoyance, and dates that slip aren't necessarily changed right away)
If Merck hasn't said anything about the collaborative phase 3 Incyte won't either. We may hear about participation in further Lilly phase 3s. I'm not aware of any possible Incyte-only phase 3 information that might be announced.
I can't get away from the Nov SITC fiasco. And we saw a lesser version of the same problem just now. Incyte has depended too much on convertible financing in the past to offend that class of investors now, and above all things they demand orderly markets. Some kind of announcement that promises follow-up when news has left confusion in its wake would be extremely welcome.
Of course, we'll get a clinical info dump in 2 months, so not much novel this week.
That is not information given on clinicaltrials. In fact, the futility / slaughter checkpoint is rarely mentioned at all unless it causes trial discontinuation. It's kind of implicit that in any "big enough" clinical trial that lasts "long enough" there will be a check some time around half-way between study initiation and final data collection. Some of the ongoing phase 2s are in an intermediate duration range. It was not mentioned in the press release on the high-CRP cohort of the trial against CRC that the low-CRP cohort would have a separate evaluation; that information was pried out by analysts. I was surprised that a trial described as enrolling patients regardless of CRP level would manage the cohorts so independently.
What about a question about the obstacles to bringing the Jakafi / interferon combination into US practice? There was a spectacularly favorable poster on it at ASH, and I believe Novartis is supporting trials in Europe. There are regulatory / marketing issues in the US that I don't understand. I actually hope that management brings this up. On a closely related note, I wouldn't mind either a management statement or a question about the possibility of reducing the price of the 5 mg Jakafi pill (already done with Jakavi), to capture some extra opportunities.
And now: "Hard to accept that these imbeciles represent the people in our government," said Shkreli, using his @MartinShkreli Twitter handle.
Not me. I don't believe I HAD energy stocks. Whoever did was correct--he jumped from the fire to the frying pan. I DID sell some airline stocks to buy more Incyte. Given how the airlines have been slammed, that was a decent move too. What I didn't do, and it would have worked out badly if I had, was relax my personal standards for leverage.
I seriously doubt that anyone is going to ask a question about either the energy business or some nominally anonymous poster on Yahoo.
I doubt that an analyst would probe the availability of Incyte to M&A. The minimum price was apparently above $200 a share back when Jakafi was new in the market, and it certainly hasn't come down since then. Since this will be the full-year presentation, Julian Baker ought to be present, although not near a microphone. Like my proposed questions, present circumstances might push an analyst to ask him to say something. I doubt that there's anything he'd say beyond vague confidence in management.
If you were an analyst, and management had just given its expected presentation, what questions would you ask them? I hope most people will try to stay in the range of plausible ANALYST questions. Do allow that anything very med-techy will be put off to the presentation at AACR.
Right now I have 2, neither one of which is ordinarily within range, but may have been brought within range by circumstances.
1) Which phase 2s sponsored by Incyte have already passed their futility checkpoint without action being taken? For which of the trials referred to earlier in the CC has that checkpoint not been reached?
2) are there non-market forces affecting timing of expected milestones related to Jakavi?
If I was buying calls, I'd go for the Jan 2018s. Roughly the expected price difference for twice the duration, but Dec expiration is barely within the time window for bari approval, and if approval comes late there might be pressure on INCY. In contrast, Lilly will have reported on probably the 3rd quarter of bari sales at the later expiration. If Janus 1 comes in positive, but below full significance (a moderately likely scenario), the extra year gives Janus 2 time to come in. Same general sort of issue for epac: we'll probably see more positive exploratory phase 2s, but I doubt that there'll be real comfort with its path to income generation before Dec expiration.
I don't see much point in selling puts at all. The prices don't reflect fear of further price declines, or even concern about valuation.
Net: if I wanted more exposure I'd just buy the stock, and perhaps sell Dec calls.
Company hitting on all cylinders. Maybe some uncertainty about timing of earnings through the year, but the bigger numbers are pushed earlier. Uncertainty about back reimbursement for Prolaris (it's not legally mandated, but it's RIGHT, at least for the gap between the legally mandated time for a reimbursement decision and when it actually came), but company flatly denies that the make-up is included in forecasts. Selling Vectra (rather than just making it available) WORKS. So of course the stock drops 8% at the open. What could be more natural.
Hate to concede that he has even a shade of a point. NYTimes did a story about drugs in needless shortage. Poster child is aminocaproic acid, the drug version of a major industrial chemical. API costs nothing at all and everyone knows it. So the price is low and only one company prepares it as a drug. They've had unspecified manufacturing problems which have lasted long enough to cause a severe shortage. Why hasn't anyone else stepped up? Well obviously, FDA is sensitized by problems at the incumbent supplier; even for an established generic drug, they have to approve manufacturing. There's also what I call the peaches effect. (Old old joke: a)Why are your peaches $1.89 a pound when Joe across the street sells them for $1.49? b)That's the price. If you don't like it, buy them from Joe a)But Joe is out of peaches b) If I was out of peaches, I could sell them for $1.49 too.) Anyway, the incumbent manufacturer holds the list price and a potential interloper is going to face enormous buyer resistance. Methotrexate is in short supply for a related reason: being able to offer MTX in your product line is part of being taken seriously as a generic supplier. But everyone offers it, and the established price is too low to induce them to offer open-ended amounts of it. So there's an enduring MTX shortage.
Point is, that while expensive drugs are too expensive in the US, The Twerp is correct that some cheap drugs are too cheap. And under normal market conditions, the mis-pricing can last for a long time and cause a lot of harm. I don't like his solution (re-create monopolies and make the cheap drugs ridiculously expensive), but this IS a problem and deserves some attention.
Morgan the Fay (Probably an aspect of The Morrigan)(the nautical phenomenon is certainly seen as connected with The Banshee, which is an aspect of The Morrigan) is female. The associated folklore is fascinating. Her part in the Arthur cycle is the least of it. Interesting question whether Morgan and Undine are related. I think they're meant to be. In South European folklore, after Marko Kralevic realizes that he has been lucky and killed a hero greater than himself (biorhythms, no less), he must exile himself from the world.
Pretty much for sure, going into ACR Lilly had an application already written for approval of baricitinib as a backup behind the TNF inhibitors. Then RA-BEAM came in much better than expected. The most likely reason they were late in filing an NDA was that they took time re-writing the paperwork for use at least on a par with the anti-TNFs (I speculated at the time that they might also be considering adding an extra trial to justify moving baricitinib ahead of anti-TNFs). Anyway, they should eventually have a higher patient count than any anti-TNF, probably equal to any two combined. The pricing is going to be tricky, because Lilly may want to go after a very large potential market in prevention of diabetic nephropathy. The potential patients there are pretty healthy, so they are also pretty price sensitive...but we're talking millions of them.
Xeljanz is a major obstacle. Not because it's any competition as a drug, but because it's a pretty bad drug that has come to represent "JAK inhibitor" to a lot of rheumatologists.
Anyway, I think Lilly revenues from baricitinib will pass $4bln annually by 2021.
ITMN was another case where a lot of "smart money" was betting that the key trial would go opposite to the way prior results suggested. Few lessons: there was a trial where the result went "against" the "Platonic" one (it happens sometimes, although the effect being looked for was smaller than the one in Recap). Enriching the final trial with likely responders sharpened the result. And of course, physicians are now learning, to everyone's sorrow, that that "enrichment with responders" was real. The benefit to run-of-the-clinic IPF patients is comparable to what prior trials suggested, not to what the final one suggested. Way I'm hearing it, the BI drug doesn't seem to be synergistic with perfenidone. The need is still extreme. Maybe I should actively look for who's still chasing IPF.
I'm disgusted at the lack of punishment of the SAC gang.
I'm getting tired of geroniacs here.
1) Easily read from the on-line appendix to the Tefferi NEJM paper: in a nominally 9-month study on 33 subjects, there were 48 grade 3-and worse adverse events.
2) Anything resembling that level of SAEs would mean that Imetelstat will never be used when there is an alterative.
3) Almost by definition, MF patients eligible for the J&J study are sick.
4) Some of those sick subjects are going to die (needn't be from drug effects)
5) Dead subjects, from whatever cause, are a problem for J&J
6) Imetelstat is very promising for MDSs, for which it would face little competition
7) Many potential trial subjects for MDS treatment aren't sick
8) Life will be a lot easier for J&J if they suspend the MF study at the earliest plausible opportunity
9) Half of the Jakafi market is PV, in which a major side effect from MF is a benefit
10) Pretty soon, Incyte will have just as much business unrelated to MPNs as related
11) So make like a shepherd and get the flock out of here.
That anyone estimating a lower than 50% probability percent chance of success for Janus 1 (and at the moment that seems to be every analyst) is writing complete rubbish. That part isn't even slightly influenced by opinion.
There is a real "Patonic" [referring to his image that the things we see in the world are shadows of the true objects in an ideal world] effect of ruxolitinib on the course of pancreatic cancer in the presence of capecitabine treatment. We can't KNOW that effect, but we measure it with clinical trials. The most likely outcome of a clinical trial is the Platonic outcome, but since we are doing imperfect (real) measurements, there is a range of collectively-most-likely outcomes. What we're trying to guess is how likely it is that a clinical trial that will end soon will suggest that the Platonic effect of ruxolitinib in this situation is beneficial. We have a flawed prior completed trial to guide us. What I'm mostly getting at is that it's wrong and dishonest to throw up your hands and say "The old trial is flawed!" There is no requirement that everyone should e honest, but the honest course of action is to identify the flaws in the prior trial, correct for them, and estimate the likelihood that reality is what the previous trial showed. For simplicity, I take it that the new, larger trial with the old flaw removed will represent reality.
Toward the end, I put in some opinion.
And by the way, the whole story of the philosophy of statistics is HARD. It has real, observable consequences (not so prominent that the grunt workers of the statistical world think of it constantly). A chemist gets his nose ground into it in a statistical mechanics course.
There are some further tweaks. Screening subjects by prognosis makes an unknown difference, so I just assume that the crude estimate is a worst case. The trial has already passed a futility/slaughter check--that isn't terribly strong, but it adds about 3% to the probability of success (the instances where despite ruxo and control being nearly equivalent in Platonic reality, the ruxo patients did 2 SD worse than controls)(no, the cases of Platonic equivalence aren't likely to come out successes, but we remove some of them from the total number of cases to be considered). When the completion date was first moved from January to April, I looked at the trial design and noticed that longer survival leads to a longer trial. That remains in play, but there has been a lot of activity regarding pancreatic cancer in the last year, so conservative guessing dictates that we attribute the change to recruiting delays.
I'm inclined to say that HH's apparent enthusiasm for the program has some predictive value. You have a trial in which the median life expectancy of control subjects is 2 months. He's seen Recap, so he has a feel for the expected range. It doesn't require breaking the blinding to observe the presence of survival outliers among the subjects. More information leakage would be easy because patients without hemorrhage but with low hematocrits are likely to be receiving ruxo.