mz: Given the higher quality of some of your previous posts, I was disappointed to see so many egregious errors of fact in this one. I do not have time to address them all, but a few comments are in order:
1) My recommendations are for appreciation over the 'next 6-12 months.' Given the fact that the market is focusing more on nearterm commercial prospects than longterm R&D, the emphasis upon companies with maturing pipelines is pertinent and appropos.
2) I have written extensive reviews of NBIX(June 97) SNAP (Oct 96), NRGN (11/95) and will be publishing one of SIBI in September. I trust that you have read none of them. I am very impressed with the longterm prospects for SIBI and NBIX, SNAP's R&D is very good but I am less comfortable with their particular business strategy. I have written several criticisms of NRGN, which has been and continues to be one of the most overvalued neuro stocks.
3) Re IPIC: what is a 'cosmetic' drug for stroke/TBI? A better looking infarct ? (actually since citicoline does reduce infarct size, I would consider that an appealingly positive 'cosmetic' effect) Since citicoline has had positive Phase III results already in one trial, and positive results in every European/Asian Ph II trial I have seen, and currently has $230 million sales annually for Grupo Ferrer and Takeda, there is reason to expect positive results in the second Ph III; and we will all know soon. Your understanding of its mechanism of effect is also lacking; Citicoline in fact has little to do with 'neuro-communication' other than promoting acetylcholine production; its most important effects involve: the repair of neuron walls, thereby 'stabilizing the structure' in the ischemic penumbra; and providing neuroprotective benefits via the reduction of free fatty acids and free radicals. I have noted in several contexts that Redux is far less significant to IPIC than citicoline (which IPIC can market itself keeping all the revenues, unless a partner offers a very good deal), linking them together as you did is absurd. By the way, IPIC owns over 60% of InterCardia, and thus will take that proportion of bucindolol royalties, at a much higher percentage than Redux's.
4) Since Paul Goddard, Neurex's CEO, was the head of the Corlopam project at SmithKline and brought it into Neurex, suggesting that there is no one there with cardiovascular expertise is ill-informed.
My projections for Neurex do not include Corlopam or SNX-111 as blockbusters, but each will make a solid contribution, and two drugs on the market is a lot better than most of the companies in this area.
5) Your comments about CEPH missed the point entirely. Many physicians who treat ALS like Myotrophin, and want to be able to prescribe it, no one has suggested that they should be forced to do so, only that they have the option. Because I expect pricing pressures to be significant, that is why I recommended that CEPH be sold after any post FDA approval bounce. We can certainly disagree about the FDA's proper role in drug-regulation; if you would like, I will send you a copy of the June 97 issue which discusses the FDA issue at considerable length.
6) Some of your comments about CNSI were accurate, some were unintelligible. I have not suggested that the stroke indication is dead, but only that a one-trial approval is, and the necessity of a second trial would set the timeframe back 18-24 months.
If you want to take gratuitous shots at a publication you have not read, and the Recommendations therefrom, I would suggest that you do your homework first.
NeuroInvestment |
