Incyte data to 'restore positive sentiment,' says JPMorganJPMorgan analyst Cory Kasimov believes the abstracts for epacadostat demonstrate "consistent and compelling evidence" of efficacy across multiple tumor types, consistent with what Incyte has been telling the Street. The analyst is "encouraged" by emerging data and expect it will "restore positive sentiment" in the name and add to the company's perceived strategic value. He reiterates an Overweight rating on Incyte shares with a $149 price target.
BMO Capital analyst Alex Arfaei says that "the ASCO abstracts solidify Merck's (MRK) significant leadership in the important 1L-NSCLC market." The analyst says that Incyte's (INCY) Epacadostat appears to be "adding meaningful clinical benefit to Keytruda." He believes that the data "clearly indicates" that Keytruda monotherapy should be the standard of care in about 25% of 1L-NSCLC patients.
BMO Capital sharply raised its price target from $146 to $155
Incyte price target lowered to $152 from $167 at Credit SuisseCredit Suisse analyst Alethia Young lowered her price target for Incyte to $152 from $167 due to moving from M&A base case valuation. While the analyst says it is possible that one day Incyte is bought, she thinks the company is progressing well in diversifying its pipeline base and de-risking its IDO inhibitor epacadostat. Young reiterates an Outperform rating on the shares.
More good news for keytruda:
May 23 (Reuters) – Merck & Co's immunotherapy Keytruda chalked up another approval on Tuesday as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said the cancer medicine can be used to treat children and adults who carry a specific genetic feature regardless of where the disease originated. It is the first time the agency has approved a cancer treatment based solely on a genetic biomarker. "Until now, the FDA has approved cancer treatments based on where in the body the cancer started – for example, lung or breast cancers," said Richard Pazdur, head of oncology products for the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "We have now approved a drug based on a tumor's biomarker without regard to the tumor's original location." The accelerated approval was for solid tumor cancers not eligible for surgery or that have spread in patients identified as having a biomarker called microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR). Tumors with those traits are most common in colorectal, endometrial and gastrointestinal cancers, but may also appear in cancers of the breast, prostate, bladder and thyroid gland. The approval covers patients whose cancer has progressed despite prior treatment and those who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options. It also includes patients with colorectal cancer whose disease has advanced after chemotherapy. The FDA grants accelerated approvals to drugs for serious conditions with unmet medical needs if the treatment appears to have certain effects deemed reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit. Merck must still conduct studies to confirm the anticipated benefit. Keytruda belongs to a new class of drugs called PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors that help the immune system fight cancer by blocking a mechanism tumors use to evade detection. It was previously approved to treat advanced melanoma, advanced non-small cell lung cancer, head and neck cancers and classical Hodgkin lymphoma.
A bit of let's pretend. Let's pretend the most likely outcome of the Lilly-FDA meeting happens: they agree that as soon as some statistical analyses of the ongoing extension studies and the then-completed China-directed study are furnished, a new NDA will be accepted, with answers to certain questions carried over from the prior NDA. Maybe even the equivalent of a SPA--agreement that satisfactory results in certain defined areas will be sufficient for Olumiant approval. (I still think that the sticking point now is long-term cardiovascular risks, so 6 months of extension study stand a very good chance of being "just what the doctor ordered"). Ok--a somewhat indeterminate timetable (8-12 months) to 99.9+% chance of approval. What does the stock do?
I certainly don't expect a rapid gain as large as the loss after the CRL. I think that drop showed that even analysts who have given low sales estimates for Olumiant privately attach a decent probability to my sort of sales estimate. So it ought to generate a move comparable to what on-time approval would have generated.
Meanwhile, actual ASCO presentations will be over ty then. The value of epac ought to be a lot better-defined by then. The base the move is taking off from ought to be more stable than the level the drop happened from. It' always possible that realistic estimates of time-to-market for epac will still be clearing stars from the eyes of analysts who were initially dazzled by phase-2 results.
Gosh, this is complicated.
Do I have to say it? Knowing how intoxicated you people are and incapable of understanding the market reality, I suppose I'll have to be the responsible one and say it like it is. Remember that terrifying panic you felt when this tanked from $150 to $114? Yes, that terror. Now you remember. You have such a short memory. Did you learn your lesson about gambling on a stock with 229 P/E or are you gluttons for punishment still clinging to your delusions of a $300/share buyout, and you're going to hold till you lose everything? And please tell me you didn't buy a gambler's stock on margin. Use this opportunity to do the sane thing. Don't be the idiot crying when this hyper inflated pumper's stock tanks below $100 this year and then remembering you could have gotten out at $130.
Be rational, don't get emotionally attached to the pumper's dream because the pumpers will be the first to sell out, just like INCY's board, and they'll leave you high and dry. In this institution controlled stock, they'll smear you like a bug and rob your nest egg and not lose a wink of sleep. To the pumpers you're just a cattle to slaughter. The pump is always the sweet poison they use to chain you to a stock. Be rational. P/E 229. All the industry leaders have a P/E around 30-40. Again... be rational not emotional.
Do not expect CEO sell out cheap. Big pharma about to make its move. Look for another 10% this week. Very dangerous stock for sure. Good luck
Herve very positive regarding Olumiant (Baricitinib) and said that probably not need more studies for Baricitinib, only give data from existing studies. Same info was submitted to European/US regulators. Still waiting from FDA demanding what they want ?
Talks about epacadostat ido....
What do you think, Doc?
To the shorts: there's not a lot to say but BUY incyte, it's never to late!
Listened to the UBS conf. Some meta-substance on the ASCO presentations: data cut-off for the abstracts was October. Meeting presentations will include 3 more months of data. As you can well imagine, the presenters will have yet another 3 months or so to answer questions with. The go-ahead decisions at Merck and BMS were made with data in between abstract and meeting.
HH talked as if the methodology Incyte is using to screen drug combos is useful and non-obvious...ie, patentable. That'll be amusing to watch.
Suggestion that Lilly and FDA have had low-level conversations regarding the CRL. Unsurprising, but the substance is an obvious third rail.
Boast that epac can be dosed as high as you please without OFF-TARGET toxicity (on-target is a matter for research).
Come on Tom....we know you are monitoring this MB.... still looking for $19,$18,$17... what a moron... Remember if you need a new job...Walmart needs a person to push carts in parking lot...
More reactions :
Data reported from the biopharmaceutical company indicated that something that wasn't possible before could be possible now. Incyte has been developing a cancer immunotherapy called an IDO inhibitor. The drug maker's goal has been to use an IDO inhibitor with a PD-1 inhibitor in order to help people respond to cancer treatments better. This is compared to using just a PD-1 inhibitor. Goldman Sachs said in a note, "Solid data validates IDO as a leading IO add-on." This could be a breakthrough in medicine so no wonder traders reacted positively towards the news. Jefferies analyst Jeffrrey Holford also commented and said in a note, "INCY's IDO looks most promising in this class so far, but not very disruptive in relation to immuno-oncology as a whole."
Comment: the RSI is above its neutrality area at 50. The MACD is negative and above its signal line. The MACD must break above its zero level to call for further upside. Moreover, the stock is trading above its 20 day MA (121.65) and above 50 day MA (132.33). Finally, Incyte has crossed above its upper daily Bollinger band (128.74).
Supports and resistances: 158.6 ** 153.2 * 148 ** 142.6 128.8 last 122 118.6 ** 110 * 105 ** --- TRADING CENTRAL is a commentary service specialising in technical analysis.
Cramer has been saying for about 18 months or more to stay away from Gilead. He's been saying, they need to put their money to work to acquire something and until they do he couldn't recommend the company. In a nut shell, stay away from this value trap until further notice. I originally questioned his judgement but, he's been correct. I'd also like to point out that it's my impression that many well respected leaders of industry (Tim Cook, etc) have granted him interviews because they seem to view him as a respectable and responsible individual. If they didn't they wouldn't give him the time of day. PS.....Incyte has existing relationships with Merck and I believe other large Pharmaceutical company's. These company's have deep pockets and the inside track regarding Incyte's oncology drugs and pipeline. Given the circumstances, I find it very unlikely that Gilead would be successful in attempting to acquire Incyte. Time will tell!
170 by 4th of july
5/18/2017 Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. Set Price Target Hold $125.00 5/18/2017 JPMorgan Chase & Co. Set Price Target Buy $149.00 5/19/2017 Morgan Stanley Reiterated Rating Overweight$142.00 5/18/2017 Jefferies Group LLC Reiterated Rating Buy $148.00
Why Stay Bullish On Gilead A recent investor presentation echoed the reasons why Barclays remains bullish on this once high-flying drug maker. By Johanna Bennett May 19, 2017 12:02 p.m. ET
There’s no shortage of investors who have lost confidence in Gilead Sciences (GILD). Hopes of better news were shattered by its most recent earnings report. And so far, the company has not delivered a strategy for emerging from its recent melancholy. But Gilead’s chief operating officer, Kevin Young addressed investors at a recent conference, highlighting the outlook for the hepatitis C market, the strength of the company’s HIV drug portfolio and continued efforts to expand into new areas such as cancer and NASH.
Add the ever-present speculation about a possible deal on the horizon, and Barclays analyst Geogff Meacham remains bullish on the drug maker with a 12-monthprice target of $85. That suggests a 33% upside for the shares. Gilead continues to look for the right deal (vs. just any deal), one that would provide an asset or platform capable of establishing a leadership position. Management noted that it remains focused on the long-term, sustainable option rather than a short-term fix. At $64.50, Gilead's share price has fallen more than 21% over the past 12 months.
Do they have the balls to buy incite?
2nd time around, open for discussions
possibilities Abbvie, lost humira patent, may look to replace lost sales in RA, a good plus in oncology Allergan, stock down alot, needs new revenue source, great tax rate, failed merger with Pfizer Astra Zeneca, recent fall on the clovis news, a real stretch here BMY, recent set back with Opdivo, shares down of late, needs to stake lead against Merck Gilead, Hiv sales ok, but hep c sales declining, and lots of bio similars approved, stock 4 year low JNJ lost out to Abbvie, on the buyout of their last partnered drug with PCYC Merck best bet to take the all around lead in immuno-oncology Novartis, Needs to sell Alcon or partnership with GSK, great potential at incyte with employees from NVS Pfizer, never out of the game to acquire, failed merger with Allergan, revenue is declining Roche, not very good news at ASCO, needs to make up ground against BMY, MRK Sanofi, no knowledge, but possible
more than likely not Lilly, not what they do Abbot, just do not think they could swing a deal with Incyte GlaxoSmithKlein, might do a deal on partnership with Novartis
Now it will start the real pump machine... Like Herve said : “It’s not bad to be sexy — you want to be wanted,”
If the data and results continue like this more deals/ties will be made. Let's make money with all key players! Love this company!
Like Herve said: Well, we offer an open company from a partnership standpoint and we have an obsessive vision of making Incyte a company that will be one of the fastest-growing, most successful, and most profitable.
Incyte should go buy up the rest of AGEN
BMO Capital Markets' conversations with investors suggest variability in expectations ahead of release of abstracts (May 17 @ 5pm) for Incyte Corporation's (NASDAQ:INCY) epacadostat + Keytruda that is driven primarily by inappropriate benchmarking. BMO Capital Markets has summarized (Exhibit 1) data from trials of PD-1/L1 monotherapy and combinations in the four solid tumor settings Incyte and Merck have advanced into Phase 3s. The firm expects Phase 2 data to show a 40-50% improvement in ORR over trials of PD-1/L1s monotherapy with safety that is better than chemo and CTLA4 combos, which should enable INCY shares to recover.
BMO Capital Markets believes mid-to-high 20% overall response rate for epacadostat + Keytruda in 2nd line NSCLC with a relatively clean safety profile would compare favorably to Keytruda alone of 18% and Tecentriq alone of 17%, with the caveat that Keytruda and Tecentriq Phase 2/3 studies evaluated patients with PD-L1 greater than 1% and PD-L1 greater than 5%, respectively (Exhibit 1). This would also place epacadostat combo data in line with Keytruda + Yervoy and separately Imfinzi + Tremelimumab ORR of 25% and 27%, respectively. Opdivo 2L+ trial demonstrated ORR of 13.3% compared to 5.8% for cetuximab ± methotrexate ± docetaxel. Keytruda demonstrated a ORR of 17% in a 1L+ SCCHN trial. Opdivo + Yervoy (CheckMate-032) trial in 2L+ bladder cancer showed an ORR of 38.5% vs. 24.4% for Opdivo alone. This was in line with CheckMate-275 trial of Opdivo alone in 2L urothelial carcinoma that showed ORR of 20%. Keytruda (KEYNOTE-12; Cohort C) trial in primarily 2L+ bladder cancer showed an ORR of 26% in patients PD-L1 greater than 1%. In RCC, the Check-Mate-025 Phase 3 trial of Opdivo showed an ORR of 25% vs. 5% for Afinitor.
What I think is worth looking for in abstracts. Somehow, I think the short-term issues are less important than usual, given the preoccupation of the stock market with The Washington Circus.
I'll only talk about epac, which is the big issue these days. FWIW, it's just human nature to look at the therpeutic value teasers. My index of 'goodness' is something like the product of increased rate of response times increase of median of overall survival and progression-free survival (on responders). Adjusted for how restrictive the companion testing is, how bad the AEs are, etc etc (in other words, it's pretty subjective). But a 40% increase in response with a 40% increase in PFS among responders is a doubling of 'goodness.' Sorta. There's a cutoff around 40% increase in goodness below which marketability is uncertain.
The real abiding interest is safety. After all, the results are from phase-2-ish trials which are traditionally more safety-oriented than efficacy-oriented. Basically, even one fatal autoimmune runaway (like Kite had) in any program kills that program and casts great doubt on all the others. But we'd almost certainly know if there was going to be one of those reported. More to the point, there should be results bearing on changes in the 'traditional' autoimmune conditions (diabetes, thyroid inflammation) and "odd" (GvHD-like) autoimmunity. And of course, ordinary toxicology is interesting; we've been told that it's benign, but this dump will give us the best look at it. You don't want liver or kidney enzyme changes, and you don't want CYP enhancements that will affect drugs likely to be co-administered (this can get complicated). It's nice if the range between selected dose and dose that generates lots of serious AEs is 3-fold or more.