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 : CLTR COULTER PHARMACEUTICAL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WTDEC who wrote (379)	11/20/1999 8:25:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 666

Medical theory. There are two. One (IDEC bulls): Coulter simply understates side effects. Eventually they'll pay for it, or maybe, are in the process of doing so right now and this is partly behind the ongoing Keystone Cop routine with the FDA. Two, as V1 states, Yttrium finds its way to cortical bone (yes, were the marrow lives) just because of its chemical nature. If radioactive, then, of course, you'll see more myelo toxicity. Iodine is metabolized differently. I slept during my Inorganic Chem undergrad classes, so this is the best I can do re. exotic elements such as Yttrium. PB

To: WTDEC who wrote (379)	11/20/1999 9:13:00 PM
From: Bob L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 666

Maybe we are giving different weight to different abstracts. You said, "The available facts show that in refactory cases, Bexxar shows a 70% response versus 46% on Zev." I don't see why we should limit this to refractory cases. My notes are that overall response for bexxar was 53% and zevalin was 68%. Bexxar better on complete response at 33% vs. 23%. Maybe I copied this down wrong, but the populations are so small in these studies and the variation in forms of NHL among patients so great that I think we are straining our eyes for naught. You also said "Zev gives rise to a fair number of cases of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia while Bexxar does not." Here, I'll have to flat disagree. One abstract noted ANC <500 for 19% of bexxar patients. Thrombocytopenia has also been a problem with bexxar. For this the bexxar abstract said <10K in 4%, but 10K is too low a threshold to compare. (The Zev abstract used Grade 4, which is platelets <25K.) As PB mentioned, some think that Kaminsky and co. have been a bit, er, vague about the exact adverse effects profile. Vaguer is not safer. I just don't see anything like a statistical significant difference in response and adverse effects shown in these abstracts. But of course I will yield to anyone with actual credentials in statistics. Or medicine for that matter. <g> Both of these products should be approved, sooner rather than later, and taken to market. Let the chips fall where they may. We will need a lot more patients treated to know which is better.