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 (384)	11/21/1999 12:14:00 AM
From: Vector1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

Great discussion. This is SI at its best. My view of the data is that Bex has a slightly better side effect profile. Efficacy is very close. We do not yet have data from CLTR's study on patients who have failed Rit which will give a closer comparison to the recent Zev study. With regard to efficacy Bex appears to have an edge on length of remission. However to date Rit plus CHOP is the single most compelling study IMO. The early Bex plus Fludar is very promising with the combo resulting in a high percentage of CRs. We will have to see further data to see how long these responses last and whether there are any PCR CRs. Of note by pretreating with Fludar there were NO HAMA responses in first line patients. Ask yourself if you had this incideous disease which treatment would you choose. Tough call between CHOP plus Rit or Fludar plus Bex. There are many oncologists who are very comfortable with Fludar in first line treatment of NHL. The Fludar/Bex trial has the potential to defeat the argument that Bex is only a salvage treatment. With regard to the question of whether CLTR is downplaying the side effect profile of Bex I simply do not beleive it. Bex is well supported by some of the top clinicians treating this disease at some of the nations most prestigeous cancer centers. V1

To: WTDEC who wrote (384)	11/21/1999 2:49:00 AM
From: Bob L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

Yep, I read the quote of Ende. I think he is correct when he suggests "investors not compare the drugs across independent studies as different traits of the patient populations within the studies may bias the results." Look how much variation in results there are among the abstracts of the same drugs. Look how much variation between phases of the same drug. We all suffer from investment-induced bias. I think it is important to keep that in mind. When we get peer-reviewed literature that concludes there a better efficacy-safety profile for bexxar, I will cheerfully concede the point and you all can say you told me so. As V1 says this is an excellent discussion. Thanks.