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 : Agouron Pharmaceuticals (AGPH) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JOHN W. who wrote (2977)	11/24/1997 11:27:00 PM
From: Izzy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6136

The problem is that the article was published in the WSJ, page C7, and specifically mentions AGPH with reference to the company being dependent on one drug only. "If something happens to the product, the stock can go back down" [which it actually did today]. However, this article is pure bunk when it comes to AGPH. In fact, the whole article, which mentioned unsuccesssful biotechs, is very slanted and rather stupid, IMO. Baloney to the author! It would be nice if Bill K. (or anyone) would rebut this article's falsities. Uninformed investors are being mislead.

To: JOHN W. who wrote (2977)	11/25/1997 12:46:00 AM
From: cherry grove	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6136

Mr. Market is Mr. Manic. One day she will give everything away for a pitance and the next day she will buy back for a king's ransom. Viracept is the coca-cola of PI's and is going strong. Incidently, Glaxo has been very slow with their VX-478 clinical trials which makes me sceptical. I understand the side effects are fatigue, rash, headaches, nausea and lose stool. I really wouldn't want to build anyones hopes up too high. It is most misunfortunate the number of people who were killed by Glaxo's AZT at the onset of AIDS (dozens, I have personally known.). Hopefully that they may get it right this time as we need as many alternatives as possible. Cherry P.S. I think that the people who own AGPH shoukd do Ok. P.P.S. Does anyone have the latest script numbers?

To: JOHN W. who wrote (2977)	11/25/1997 9:18:00 AM
From: Henry Niman	Respond to of 6136

Here's the AP story on new AIDS/HIV treatments: The Food and Drug Administration has approved 50 AIDS-related drugs, including eight this year. By John Hendren The Associated Press N E W Y O R K, Nov. 21 - Drug makers are working on an unprecedented array of new medicines to combat the AIDS virus, enough to triple the number of drugs and vaccines on the market these days. Drug companies are testing 124 new treatments on patients, according to the survey by the Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America. The Food and Drug Administration has approved 50 AIDS-related drugs, including eight this year. With the first-ever drop in the number of new cases last year in the United States, drug makers have come a long way since the first drug, Glaxo Wellcome's AZT, was approved in 1987, said Dr. John Siegfried, the industry group's head of medical affairs. "Here we are 10 years later, just a decade, and now there are 50 drugs either for the disease or for associated conditions," he said. Treatments under development include: 40 anti-viral medicines and protease inhibitors, which have proven effective in reducing the amount of the virus in some patients. 23 drugs to fight AIDS-related cancers, such as Kaposi's sarcoma. 11 anti-invective medicines to fight opportunistic diseases, including a type of pneumonia that afflicts 8 out of 10 patients. 5 gene therapies designed to genetically alter patients' cells to make them more resistant. 12 vaccines, including the first DNA-based preventive vaccines. The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the drop in AIDS deaths and new diagnoses last year shows that powerful new drugs seem to be slowing down the virus. In 1996, an estimated 56,730 people were diagnosed with AIDS in the United States, down 6 percent from the 60,620 new cases in 1995, according to the CDC. AIDS deaths also dropped 23 percent, from an estimated 50,140 in 1995 to about 38,780 in 1996. About 235,470 people were living with AIDS in 1996. The CDC said powerful drugs such as protease inhibitors are apparently preventing HIV infection from progressing to full-blown AIDS, especially in patients who start taking the medicine early. Cost Still Stifling Many AIDS activists agree that drug company scientists have made AIDS drugs a priority, but they give drug makers a mixed review overall. "I would give them an 'A' for advances in the science and an 'F' for fairness in pricing," said Daniel Zingale, executive director of AIDS Action in Washington. "We do owe them a great debt of gratitude for the advances they've made in the fight against HIV and AIDS. The challenge is to make those treatments more available to people," he said. Patients pay as much as $15,000 a year for the three-drug cocktails usually used to treat AIDS and other drugs to tackle opportunistic infections and other related problems. Doctors who treat AIDS patients have eagerly called for more drugs since mutations in the virus can reduce the effectiveness of drugs. New drugs are being approved more quickly, in part due to an FDA program that uses contributions from drug makers to hire more officials to review drugs. President Clinton renewed the program on Friday.

To: JOHN W. who wrote (2977)	11/25/1997 6:06:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6136

John, I came accross a little article in something called "Drug & Market Development" (October 1 issue) that touches upon PIs in development. As you state, the only one in a more or less advanced stage of clinical development is the Glaxo/Vertex drug. However, the article also mentions Kynostatin (aka KNI-272 by Nikko Kyoto Pharmaceuticals and the NCI), and U103373 by Pharmacia & Upjohn. I am also aware of a follow-up PI to Norvir/ritonvir by Abbott known as ABT-378; this one may have started phase I trials in 1997. The article also estimates US market potential for PI's; by 2001 the author sees a market of just under $2 billion a year, assuming 1.1 mill HIV-infected individuals, a market penetration of combination therapy of 31 %, and an annual cost per patient of $5,600 (which I guess it is the same as it is now?). As a comment on Henry's post of an AP article, I am curious to know what is meant by "in development." For example, the current issue of the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry has an article on new PIs by Parke-Davis; it does not look as if this is really being pursued at least at the preclinical level. If one counts this kind of early effort, I can see how one can come up with figures like "over 40 new antiviral therapies." PB