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 : Array Biopharma, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (284)	5/15/2014 8:13:25 AM
From: nigel bates	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 321

Thoughts? Given the history of pharma decision making, and lots of unknowables (eg the terms of the existing agreement with ARRY pertaining to this kind of situation, if any) probably best to think of it as a unpredictable binary event along the lines of a clinical trial result ?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (284)	5/18/2014 7:51:41 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 321

We've been discussing: 1. the taflinar/mekinist (dabrafinib/trametinib) combo, and the relevance to arry of the proposed swap between Novartis and GSK, and 2. the Novartis trial combining MEK162 with the CDK4/6 inhibitor LEE011..... abstracts.asco.org What I didn't know is that GSK is collaborating with Pfizer (bidding for Astra, home of selumetinib) to launch a combo trial of MEK and CDK4/6 inhibitors (trametinib/palbociclib) of their own....... clinicaltrials.gov And the big news this week is that FDA has lubed an NDA for palbociclib, based on phase II data, to treat ER+ HER2- breast Ca. pfizer.com Dizzy, I don't know how to read them. But there are tea leaves scattered all over.

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (284)	5/20/2014 10:36:42 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 321

>> Squarer sounded anxious in the last conference call, but he must actually be drooling? Thoughts? << This morning, at UBS? Sounded like spittle was puddling at his feet. Well worth catching the rewind.

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (284)	5/30/2014 11:58:17 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 321

>> Seems to me that Novartis, if forced to return MEK162 to Array, is a tad between-rock-and-hard-place. Genentech would be coming at them with a combo (vemurafenib/cobimetinib) that looks like it may be superior to Tafinlar/Mekinist, but they have the problem that LGX818/MEK162 is far behind in development (braf-mutant melanoma). So Novartis would be doing the deal, in part, to get a therapy that might not be long-term competitive, while simultaneously gutting their own effort. No? << onclive.com Adding a MEK inhibitor to a BRAF inhibitor has efficacy advantages, but also advantages with respect to reduced toxicity. We have observed that already with the dabrafenib/trametinib combination, but the benefits tend to be even greater with LGX818 plus MEK162. There's also this, relating to the LEE011/MEK162 trial.... In tumors that do not have a BRAF mutation, and have other mutations, such as NRAS or NF1, combining a CDK4/6 inhibitor with a MEK inhibitor is the strategy we think is the most scientifically and clinically relevant.

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (284)	8/21/2014 2:22:17 AM
From: tuck	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 321

Might be worth going over the partnership agreement. Not invested and currently busy, so not going to do it anytime soon myself. But have heard there is a non-compete clause in there that, even more than anti-trust issues, would compel NVS to return. This would probably not be redacted. Recent 2Q PR contains language suggesting ARRY expects return, but It could be just boilerplate. If return happens and market kneejerks the stock price down, could be a good buying op. Cheers, Tuck