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 : momo-T/FIF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Icebrg who wrote (1890)	2/7/2005 6:26:47 PM
From: former_pgs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12215

From an investment point of view, there is little money to be made by speculating in Iressa's revival for nsclc. As Erik suggested, in patients where EGF-R status (mutation or not) is unknown, docs can't go with Iressa over Tarceva. Iressa is then left solely to the mutation-bearing patients. In this case there are two possible scenarios: 1) If Tarceva does have comparable activity in the mutation-bearing subset of patients, then AZN or patients have little to gain from Iressa remaining on the market. Net effect here is that Iressa gets pulled and / or remains on the market with sales that are too low to impact AZN's valuation. 2) If Iressa's effect on the subset is unique and not replicated by Tarceva, then AZN should leave the drug on the market. And so should the FDA. However, they're not going to make much money from it. It may be something to license out to a smaller player, who may even develop a rapid test for the genotyping. Net effect again is that it doesn't positively affect AZN's valuation.