Hi Brad:
You said: " What I believe investors are missing in their analysis of Idec is that C2B8's competition is chemo/radiation in which nhl patients are strongly looking for alternative therapies that are just as efficacious but less toxic".
This may be true, but as an oncologist, I can tell you that patient-initiated decisions are but a small percentage of how treatment decisions are made. People come in with a new or relapsed diagnosis of NHL and they are often panicked, and leave and WANT TO LEAVE the decisions to the physician. I personally welcome input from my patients if the outcome is bleak (having been trained in California, where patient input as a tradition really started), but don't expect the medical community across the US to recommend C2B8 without HEAVY marketting in the traditional medical playing fields i.e. journals, national meetings, etc. Hopefully, the management of IDEC understands this.
Also, in response to JBS's comment about study findings showing sense of well being being more important than tumor shrinkage to physicians, that is interesting. But the ability to successfully promote a treatment that will undoubtedly cost $2-3K will depend on its ability to cause prolonged well-being, which of couse means tumor shrinkage. Well-being, prolonged that is, whether or not the patient has a partial or complete remission of disease, is dependent on tumor shrinkage. I don't think, in the era of managed care, that physicians will prescribe a treatment that doesn't really shrink tumors and costs $2-3K (lets hope more!!! spoken as an IDEC owner). Anyway, there's my opinions for what it's worth...Put briefly, if this stuff doesn't cause prolonged remissions, it ain't gonna sell. Personally, I think it will, by the way |
