The 'broken pencils' chatter was edifying. What was left out was the fact that most analysts had already dropped their valuation of the ruxo in solid tumors program to zero (accompanying the CRC cohort discontinuation move), so instead of the stock paying for the discontinuation 3 times, it's paid 4 times. New specificity on bari participation-low end of the tiered range is 20% with an expected average of 25%. HH was clearly torn on whether to answer a question that amounted to whether bari will eventually sell over $6 Bln annually; I think he came down closer to yes than to no. (With the evident non-failure of Xeljanz, the vulnerability of RA biologics is clearer).
Since your mother has come up in this discussion, I'll ask whether she named you "reality_check_I" If not, you're at least as much a pseudo as I am. I say at least, because jacosa is pretty much my only online identity everywhere.
With all the communication problems, the candidate change vs PIK3-delta has been handled successfully. And the clarification of their hope for the program was helpful.
Unusually clear answer on further research collabs with Lilly. Getting to nitty-gritty on diabetic nephropathy. Earlier stage on atopic dermatitis. But neither decision made.
Clarification on what has been discontinued an why: all studies based on systemic (and regional) inflammation activity of ruxo combined with other agents gone. Local inflammation based studies continue. Not all of the discontinued studies had actually failed, but were considered unpromising. Available results will be published.
Epac remains the item that you can't assign a value to. But yeah, the solid tumor programs were a big part of the "You say trial costs, I say multi-billion dollar market" takeover defense.
I've noticed a trend toward buzzwordification in recent presentations. Jus a cloud like a man's hand, but a downpour might follow, and it might imaginably split the company (You can reconstruct from how analysts react after meetings with management that there are favorite and "stepchild" programs, and an opportunity to stay with a favorite-enriched piece might be tempting). Dr Paul ADORES epac. I think HH likes biologics, and would like to bring in more.
They didn't announce the discontinuation last month, only discontinuation of one cohort of one [never-optimistically-regarded] study. At the JPM conference, HH was upbeat about Janus-1.
On the other hand, at least the BoA/ML analyst put his estimate of the ruxo market for solid tumors at zero after the high-CRP CRC discontinuation, and few other analysts had imputed much value to the program in the first place.
WOW. Huge in both directions. And in cash items, too. I guess the high-range YoY growth of Jakafi sales is probably the biggest one. But Janus-1 was the best hope for a new income stream before next Winter, and while the various studies in the ruxo combinations vs solid tumors collection were pretty unglamorous, the ultimate [always acknowledged low probability] market opportunities were enormous. But I keep saying "Year of cash." These were expensive studies, and they won't need to be paid for going forward. Some analysts imputed substantial value to the chance of at least one success in this set of programs. I hope we'll get some publications about paraneoplastic syndromes out of this failure. While the "inflammatory regional environment favors tumor survival" story was the most public one, the "Cytokine storm causes fever, wasting, weakness, etc. and mixed JAK inhibition blocks those effects" story seemed pretty solid. Are micrometastases the real culprit in toxic cancers?
Nothing in the release about participation in Lilly's study against diabetic nephropathy. If nothing is volunteered, that ought to draw a question.
This is an incredibly odd time to announce failure of Janus-1. I can't get away from that. The normal "preplanned interim analysis" would have been done long ago. With data collection due to end in April for a study that began last January, patients are not being spared a whole lot of futile treatment.
The list of kinds of AEs suggests an off-target activity. The molecular structure of pacritinib is consistent with crown-ether-like ion binding, which is, in turn, consistent with these AEs. If this is what's happening, bleeding problems may be overcome, but heart function problems look likely to be intractable.
The game is now about cash. Especially about recurring cash
(as opposed to milestones). For now, that means Jakafi sales vs MPNs. Sales vs PaCa could start around the next CC (while salespeople are unlikely to call anyone's attention to a good result in Janus 1, oncologists will inform themselves--guaranteed). It isn't so clear that there's another new source of income before next Winter.
It won't hurt when Merck actually begins the epac-combo phase 3. I hope someone else announces an intention to do a phase 3 with an epac combo vs a big 3 cancer before this Q ends.
It's a complication that information flow from Incyte has been weak when it could have stabilized the market Convertible holders demand orderly markets. but everyone prefers them. Incyte did nothing to dispute the rumor about ruxo patent expiration, which might have been harmless except that the Geron publicity mob got a bunch of press while that rumor was live. Incyte allowed itself to look dishonest by not clarifying its connection to the Keytruda / epac abstract, and then exponentiated the problem by allowing rumors about the full presentation to go unchecked. Just lately, we've had a minimal release on the phase 2 combo against CRC, when there's no obvious reason it could not have been clarified a little, or even put in context.
I consider that "no recession is at hand" a pretty close one. The engine of severe recessions is low demand. There are a lot of ways that can happen. In the present environment, income inequality has left the lower 2/3 of the US economic heap pretty constrained In what they can buy, while the oil price collapse and its consequences have left a lot of the people who have enough money to buy stuff feeling threatened. This has a possibility of going bad.
I'm comparing this to 1998, when the Russian collapse passed with modest harm to the US, but we had a stronger middle class back then.
I'm afraid that all today's close indicates is that by afternoon, the trading monkeys had gotten the word that a serious potential competitor had blown up. Since we don't know much detail about the problem (except that it seems to let people die), it remains a possibility that the right balance of JAK-1 / 2 activity is part of the benefit of ruxo. That would make life a lot harder for other newcomers.
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.