Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (10634)	7/7/1999 9:59:00 AM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Results were great. Not knocking them but just interested if any of us can find out what the results were at the longer look back period of 141 days. As given the results were at 56 days. <<<<<<<< Analysis of data from the study showed that 48% of patients treated with the 0.3 mg/kg dose of the product showed a Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) score at 56 days of 50% or greater improvement (''good'' or better) compared with 15% of placebo patients (p = 0.0002, Fisher's Exact test) and 25% had a PGA score of 75% or greater improvement (''excellent'') compared with 2% of the placebo group (p = 0.0004). On the whole, the drug appeared to be well tolerated. The most common adverse events were mild headaches and low-grade fever, particularly after the first dose. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (10634)	7/7/1999 10:02:00 AM
From: Robert K.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

While the news itself is nothing new, the release IMO provides some important clues. Example>note the words psoriasis is a t-cell mediated disorder. Note the mentioning of "other" potentially t-cell mediated disorders. Note that. Why did they include those comments? Also note the Jack mentioned(in the slide) angiogenesis AGAIN. Dont ignore these clues IMO. Why mention them randomly? Standard K disclaimers. Never invest based on what I say. Consider NOTHING ever as fact.

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (10634)	7/7/1999 10:06:00 AM
From: Edward Paule	Respond to of 17367

Why is there no mention of the results after the 91-day and 140-day follow-up periods? This is an obvious void in information. I'll have to assume that the beneficial results observed when the ninth weekly dose would have been administered (had weekly treatments continued) were not sustained. I'll have to assume that X did not want to taint the positive slant on their press release by including the neutral results of the later follow-ups. Financially however, this could be positive. Psoriasis suffers will need to continually take the drug. Also not mentioned were the results from other dosages. Was the dosage result given considered high or low? Just my off-the-cuff opinion, Ed.