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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Young who wrote (13168)	9/28/2004 2:43:36 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

What makes you think, at a market cap of only 1.4B, that they're being taken seriously? Shorts should pray.

To: Michael Young who wrote (13168)	9/28/2004 3:12:49 PM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 52153

How are we supposed to take AGIX's results seriously when they only evaluated 133 out of 500 trial subjects? Obviously if there was any funny business about which 133 subjects they chose, then people would be entitled to be suspicious. But as I understand the trial design, these simply reflect the first half of the patients in the trial as agreed with the FDA for the interim look, with one added complication. The outside clinics looked (blinded) at each patient and decided if they were appropriate for an atherosclerosis trial or not based on the first IVUS reading - this was originally designed as a restenosis trial. That seems OK to me - I don't see any opportunity for any bias in the selection. The p values were very good indeed, so there's no question that this effect is happening by chance, particularly as it effectively was two separate trials because of the different methodologies used by the two different outside clinics involved. Peter

To: Michael Young who wrote (13168)	9/28/2004 3:59:49 PM
From: Rudy Saucillo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 52153

I certainly agree with Rick's comments in that I wouldn't short this stock with the complete set of top-line results due out by end of the year (~260 patients). As a comparison, Pfizer bought out Esperion last December for $1.3B after they released results from a 47 patient atherosclerosis trial that showed similar regression. The difference is that the ESPR drug is IV and used in an acute care setting in patients with acute coronary syndromes...a market much smaller than the huge statin market. With AGIX a little more than a year away from an FDA filing, this stock has lots of room to run assuming good data in the next few months. BTW, the ESPR and AGIX end points were the same...regression of plaque volume.