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 : Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ALXN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: keokalani'nui who wrote (313)	8/8/2003 8:32:47 PM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 824

WE, You are asking questions that none on street (or analyst) can answer at this time. First put aside what Bell (or any CEO, COO, whoever,..) said or comment. Ignore it, and believe only in hard data and clear evidence. PRIMO had two objective: a) to show that Pexe can by 30% reduce event rate (in primary and secondary end-points analysis) in CABG group, and b) safety for valve surgery group, or that this population will not do worse on drug than placebo. As, it was case in PIIb. Valve group negative data neutralized observed 65% reduction in CABG alone! CABG+ valve ITT was not KEY secondary endpoint, imo. It was at the end of the many secondary end-points by protocol and trial designee. ALXN never expected that valve group will be so important, they would be happy to say “Hey, valve Pts did not do worse on Pexe relative to placebo!” Now, let see CABG population in PIII? IF mortality is ~2% (historical rate) and large MI is 6% than what is needed (or expected) for each value to generate overall 30% reduction? They need overall 2-3%-tage point reduction! Regards the secondary-end points results it will be important what are real numbers? Are they better than expected? Valve group can not explain overall results, only that there is no additional risk for this population and they can have the same benefit as non-valve group. If data for valve are not significantly better than for non-valve, regardless that they did improve overall results, it can be statistical fluke (1/5 Pts numbers) or result that can not be explained by itself. Here (and for CABG) separate absolute value for each non-fatal MI and death rate will be critical. IF you take Bell’s comment on CONSISTENCY as granted, than my take is that there was not significant benefit in all-cause mortality while Pexe did reduce non-fatal MI. Which would explain valve group contribution to overall result. However, this will reduce their marketing advantage, as mortality is great factor than MI. Anyway, ALXN is not playing fair to its shareholders, with AHA embargo. IF I am shareholder I will demand important data, or get out of stock. Miljenko