Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Cytokinetics, Incorporated Message Board

too_much_sunshine 7 posts  |  Last Activity: 15 hours ago Member since: Apr 14, 2007
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Reminds me of Icagen

    by too_much_sunshine May 22, 2015 12:57 PM
    too_much_sunshine too_much_sunshine 15 hours ago Flag

    I think your analysis is solid, mobile.

    In light of your comments, I think one important aspect of Icagen as an analogy is that, even with multiple failures, Pfizer saw value in targeting ion channels, and therefore saw value in Icagen's platform and compound library. Trial design, indication or specific target may lead to failure, but the broader class of targets can still have great potential. Similarly, despite Lpath's failures (to what degree still TBD), Pfizer probably sees value in targeting bioactive lipids, and therefore values Lpath's platform for targeting them and the resulting portfolio of molecules they're starting to develop. The platform has value, even if iSONEP or ASONEP never reach the market.

  • Reply to

    Reminds me of Icagen

    by too_much_sunshine May 22, 2015 12:57 PM
    too_much_sunshine too_much_sunshine May 22, 2015 11:38 PM Flag

    No problem, mobile.

    As far as what Pfizer did, I think they did extend/restructure the deal once. Ultimately, after Icagen was down in the dumps following several failures it was sub-$1. That was 2010. In 2011 Pfizer bought them for $6.

  • too_much_sunshine by too_much_sunshine May 22, 2015 12:57 PM Flag

    Icagen had an ongoing collaboration with Pfizer starting in 2007. Their platform involved ion-channel blockade. They had a string of failures during a 3 year period but Pfizer stayed with them. They are now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.

    The point is that even with the platform failures, Pfizer still saw potential. Who knows what will happen, but it just lends some credence to the notion that Lpath is not necessarily doomed.

  • too_much_sunshine by too_much_sunshine May 13, 2015 6:54 PM Flag

    Investor reaction to the ONT-380 abstracts is pretty positive (admittedly from depressed price levels). The reaction to the neratinib (Puma) abstracts not so much-down 18% right now.

  • Reply to

    OHRP Wet AMD P2 final results out

    by too_much_sunshine Mar 27, 2015 8:26 AM
    too_much_sunshine too_much_sunshine Mar 27, 2015 8:31 AM Flag

    Actually down 62%. My Trade Architect wasn't working properly...

  • too_much_sunshine by too_much_sunshine Mar 27, 2015 8:26 AM Flag

    The PR puts the best foot forward; the fact that they missed the primary endpoint is somewhat buried. The stock is down 37%.

  • Reply to

    ASONEP did not meet endpoints

    by john_j_315 Mar 24, 2015 4:11 PM
    too_much_sunshine too_much_sunshine Mar 24, 2015 4:21 PM Flag

    The painful thing is that these results are materially similar to what was already reported. When you have a bimodal distribution split roughly 50/50, with an endpoint based on median OS, you're already on the raggedy edge. Forty percent of patients could have great results and yet this benefit could be invisible in the median OS.

    If a biomarker/responder profile emerges then this drug could be significant. I know, "if" is such a big word for so few letters.

CYTK
6.22-0.05(-0.80%)May 22 4:00 PMEDT