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 : Depotech(depo) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Czechsinthemail who wrote (442)	12/15/1997 10:45:00 PM
From: Tom D	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 887

Re DepoCyt: Other independent sources disagree with Cowan's lackluster review. There is a temptation to emphasize the Cowan review because it is written by a firm without any financial ties to DEPO. Some people might naturally tend to discount other bullish recommendations because they come from analysts with ties to DEPO. However, the Cowan report is not the only independent analyst report which makes reference to DepoCyt. Robert A. Swift, Ph.D wrote a 12 page report on DEPO on September 26, 1997 with a buy recommendation. He is affiliated with Hanifen Imhoff Inc., which to the best of my knowledge is completely independent from DEPO. His review can be purchased for $25 from investools.com via its multex service in an Adobe Acrobat format. I will not violate Mr. Swift's copyrights on this thread. Suffice it to say that Mr. Swift, like everybody else except Cowan, sees DepoTech as a relatively low-risk and lucrative drug delivery platform. Adding to Mr. Swift's objective opinion are the following facts: 1) The FDA agreed to change the protocol in the Phase III study to allow treatment with DepoCyt to the patients who were randomized to treatment with methotrexate, after only one week of nonresponsiveness to methotrexate. 2) The FDA has allowed DEPO to commence phase IV (postmarketing) studies on DepoCyt in children. 3) The phase III trial was designed to demonstrate that DepoCyt was comparable in efficacy to methotrexate, and superior in its side effect profile. As hoped, the side effects were better with DepoCyt. But the DepoCyt therapeutic response rate was also twice that of methotrexate, and the median duration of survival was about twice that of those treated with methotrexate. It is worthwhile to acknowledge the possible influences of any analyst. But there are plenty of objective reasons to be bullish about DEPO. Best Regards, Tom D