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: former_pgs who wrote (14727)	12/17/2004 1:34:11 PM
From: zeta1961	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 52153

<<My bet is that the 800 mg dose is causing problems.>> I agree with you...the study showing no cardiac problems was done with 400mg/day..the 400-800mg showed the issues.. The caveat, imo, is eventhough the majority of patients taking it for pain(200mg is on the label, I believe) there are numerous studies using it for cancer treatment at 400-800mg/day with aggressive cancers getting 800mg..and also physicians prescribing it off label, outside of controlled clinical trials, in this population.. Zeta

To: former_pgs who wrote (14727)	12/21/2004 12:55:48 PM
From: tuck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Corante blogger and friends offer some insight into the Celebrex mystery. Why did the same dose give different results: because it's not really the same dose: corante.com Be sure to click the "comments" link for the whole story. It notes that Pfizer's second trial (which the company says conflicts with the NCI results, as they haven't seen any CV signals) started a year after the NCI studies that have produced the CV signals, and suggests that it, too, will produce them in another year or so. Despite Pfizer's current stance of not yanking Celebrex from the market, odds look pretty good that they'll be forced to eventually, or at least to have Celebrex' use restricted. One wonders if continued sales of Celebrex going forward will offset the higher legal exposure of keeping it on the market. I doubt it. Cheers, Tuck