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: Ian@SI who wrote (14437)	12/9/2004 4:45:31 PM
From: tuck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

How questionable is the efficacy? The safety/patient acceptance concerns I used to have concerned the multiple injections into the eye. It just occurred to me that there is a precedent here: Isis' Vitravene for CMV. It also requires multiple injections: rxlist.com Disease severity roughly similar? The difference is that I don't remember any other treatments for CMV, whereas there for AMD. That might cause the FDA to use a slightly higher bar on Macugen. With EYET's PDUFA date on the 17th, I might roll over my gambling money from SEPR calls into EYET calls (current strategy: if in fact it comes after SEPR's, and on another dip onto the $42s; January expirations, slightly out of the money). The IV for both pretty reasonable. Neither stock will double, but could easily tack on five to ten points on optimal outcome, a handsome return for the risk. The risk for SEPR is in the label, IMO; will they get the best label? I'm betting they will (it will be interesting to watch the response in NBIX stock). I also think Macugen will be approved, and that marketing is going to be the main issue. Patient choices will be multiple ocular injections versus losing your sight versus Visudyne. Hmmm . . . Risk/reward of holding EYET after approval not as good as holding for approval, is my bottom line. Cheers, Tuck