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 : ARIAD Pharmaceuticals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jq1234si who wrote (3234)	2/22/2014 8:57:05 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 4474

I don't think his comment on 113 is that far off if you look at substance only rather than the tone. ALK+ is a relative small indication in NSCLC, and there is lots of competition in this space. Many tend to stress the differentiation, but if you look from further away distance, the three 2nd generations ALK inhibitors from NVS, Roche, ARIA are more similar than different - they are more like Sprycel and Tasigna to me, similar efficacy with different safety kinks. In this type of situation, first to market is important. NVS has two-year lead, Roche one-year lead over ARIA, which is an advantage, see Gleevec. I am not entirely sure pulmonary issue is entirely behind at this point because ARIA decided to maintain 90mg arm in upcoming trial. Based on all data available, everything considered, efficacy, safety in 1st and 2nd line, development plan, time to market etc, if I HAVE to pick one with some advantage over the others, I would pick Roche's at this moment. Well then AF may well be right.............'113 may not be the benefit to ARIA that I thought it would be.

To: jq1234si who wrote (3234)	2/22/2014 11:05:52 PM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 4474

>>ALK+ is a relative small indication in NSCLC, and there is lots of competition in this space It is my belief that once patients are started on a 2nd-generation drug instead of crizotinib then you will see duration on therapy double or better. So 4% incidence could become 10% prevalence (so to speak). I do agree that the 3 drugs appear broadly similar (and in fact LDK and '113 are also very similar chemical compounds). But if we assume the '113 tox issue is resolved, then '113 is pretty clearly better than LDK, both because of much better tolerability (the LDK patients report a lot of GI distress and the highest dose is not at all well tolerated) and apparent better brain penetration. On resistance, '113 appears to have a small edge over the others. I also do agree that first to market is an advantage, and clearly Novartis and Roche have significant marketing edges over Ariad. Peter