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 : Sepracor-Looks very promising -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tommysdad who wrote (4599)	10/20/2000 2:20:21 PM
From: jayhawk969	Respond to of 10280

Personally, I think Lilly just bailed because they don't have any guts. Or they wanted to quickly bury the same problem with regular Prozac.

To: tommysdad who wrote (4599)	10/20/2000 2:45:35 PM
From: Thomas M.	Respond to of 10280

Thanks to all for this great discussion. Tom

To: tommysdad who wrote (4599)	10/20/2000 3:01:39 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10280

tommysdad, Great discussion. I hadn't thought of some of the possibilities you mentioned. A good example of how the simplistic view here isn't always right is the example of levalbuterol. The initial assumption was that the evil twin contributed to side effects, but not to efficacy, and was otherwise inert (or perhaps long-term deleterious). If this was the case, levalbuterol should be the equivalent of double the dose of albuterol, with side effects the same. (Or equivalently, half the side effects for an equally efficacious half-sized dose). However this is not how it worked in practice. Surprisingly 1/4 (instead of 1/2) the dose of Xopenex is equivalent to a full dose of albuterol, and the side effects were not cut in nearly the same 1:4 ratio. What this means is that the evil twin was an active player in the picture, somehow interfering with the absorption or activity of the good twin or otherwise counteracting its effect. (And further, the evil twin doesn't play that big a part in the short-term side effects). Moral: Everything is more complicated than it seems. <g> Peter

To: tommysdad who wrote (4599)	10/21/2000 8:21:50 PM
From: Biotech Jim	Respond to of 10280

Great discussion, Tommysdad, Peter, JD Kelley and hm. My thoughts are that both SEPR and LLY have other compounds, with predictable level of HERG activity and QT prolongation (ie, lack thereof). I'll bet that comparative preclinical models document better efficacy for other compounds. Recall that Prozac took 10 trials to show the required two for efficacy. There will be generic competition in 2004 to 2008 that will greatly reduce the cost of commonly prescribed antidepressants. One needs a better hook with perhaps a different mechanism to be the leader in 2005. Since the '99 sales of antidepressants totals some $23B, I would guess that will amount to something like $36 to 40B for 2004. Let's predict which 4 drugs will command the bulk of the 2004 sales. I both have some SEPR shares in a long term account, and I also trade some shares. I bought recently in the high 90's, and sold half in the 120's. I guess the other half have become long term shares for now <g>. I am looking for an entry point now. As to that conspiracy theory being discussed on the thread, I say phooey. BJ