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 (3191)	12/7/1997 2:12:00 PM
From: Oliver & Co	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6136

Amprenavir is the trade name for 141W94. It is a potent, and highly bioavailabe HIV-1 Protease Inhibitor currently in phase III clinical trials. Phase I/II trials have demonstrated that it can suppress plasma HIV-1 RNA levels to 1.5 to 2.0 log10 below baseline when given as monotherapy (not good enough IMHO). It is also able to drive RNA levels below the limit of detection in most patients when given with either 1592(abacavir), or AZT/3TC. The drug is well tolerated. Major toxicities are mild nausea, occasional diarrhea and rash. Grade 3 or 4 rashes seen in ~2% of patients. There is cross-resistance with other PIs. Best response when used in combination with other PIs. IMHO, not as good as Nelf, or Cryx. There should be a place in our bag for this drug, in about 1 year. But very limited. I expect Glaxo to scream in Jan at the antiretrovirals meeting, AZT get a recomendation, not to be used as initial therapy. <I bought another 1K shares of AGPH on Friday at 30.625> That is how sure I am about this Co. Good Sunday. JLL

To: JOHN W. who wrote (3191)	12/7/1997 4:48:00 PM
From: Peter Silsbee	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 6136

>> At 12 weeks, patients taking 141W94 at the highest dose, 1200mg twice daily, plus Retrovir(R) (AZT) and Epivir(R) (3TC) had a median 2.65 log reduction in viral load (greater than 99.8%) from baseline as compared to a 1.33 log reduction for the control arm, Retrovir(R) and Epivir(R). At 12 weeks, approximately 70 percent of patients across all 141W94 dose groups experienced drops in HIV viral load to below the limits of detection... It is certainly possible, as someone has mentioned, that the higher-dose group had numbers significantly better than 70 percent. But, if this is the case, why wouldn't that be in the release? Others at SI have taught me to view this sort of "selective" release of information as at least a small red flag. VRTX claims to have a drug "at least as potent or more potent...." What would be their reason for not supporting this statement with some clinical data? PLS