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 : Sepracor-Looks very promising -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (9025)	11/21/2005 2:15:56 PM
From: kenhott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10280

Something for SEPR to think about in the future. Run an A vs. Foradil safety trial. I personally think this should be seriously considered because I don't think the real side effect rate is high. (1)Best outcome: A is clean, F is not. (2)Good outcome: A is clean, F is clean. (3)ok outcome: A shows problem, F shows problem (4)bad outcome: A shows problem, F is clean. (5)Really bad outcome: Something ugly (higher event rates, other side effects, etc) pops up. (4) is not likely given the compounds. (5) is a chance every drug takes when trialed. But given F is a known compound, the risk of (5) is low. (3) the answer is as "expected" given the label language. So can say nothing is different. (1)(2) will give SEPR something NICE to talk about, even if the FDA doesn't buy it due to trial size, etc., the info would be very useful marketing tool. For outcome (2), A (once daily) should trump F (twice daily) in the market.