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: Henry Niman who wrote (3766)	2/7/1998 5:09:00 PM
From: David S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6136

Reply-To: Crixivan E-Mail Discussion List <Crix-List@PinkPage.com> To: crix-list@pinkpage.com On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:35:52 -0500, you wrote: >Various postings have asked whether it is safe to switch from IND to NFV if >viral load is <500 to either avoid side effects or for an easier regime. > >An abstract (387) at last weeks Chicogo Conference had looked at switching >protease inhibitors when viral load was undetectable (<500). > >Of the 39 people studied, 13 were originally on an indinavir combination >and 26 were on a combination including ritonavir & saquinavir. > >The follow-up viral load test 6 weeks after the change showed 26per cent of >people had developed viral load levels above 500. This is a very high rate >especially as all patients had previoulsy been undetectable for at least 6 >months. True; these observational data do sound a note of caution about this switch. As a caveat, though, we don't know whether many of these individuals might have had viral load rebounds even if they had stayed on their original regimen. Only a randomised study of switching could answer this question definitively. But in the absence of such a study, it might indeed be safest to assume 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'... Edward King AIDS Guide at The Mining Company aids.miningco.com

To: Henry Niman who wrote (3766)	2/7/1998 5:56:00 PM
From: sam	Respond to of 6136

Anybody else listen to PaineWebber's conference call with Dr. Calvin Cohen, an HIV specialist at Harvard, regarding the Chicago retrovirus conference? Everyone should listen in -- if they can and make up their own minds on what was said. FWIW, here's my impression. Dr. Cohen was very impressed with Viracept's (five pills) twice a day dosage results ("data surprisingly good" -- "twice a day is currently proven"). Can be taken with reverse trans. inhibitor. Crix, of course, is much more difficult to regimen. Physicians nervous about crix's shorter half-life. Also, with crix, can't take all meds at once. Therefore, due to its convenience, Dr. Cohen believes that nelf is a good first line therapy. Nelf is also very successful in patients with higher viral loads. As for salvage therapy data, it is one of the most important aspects of nelf data. An increasingly important consideration for physicians when prescribing first line therapy. Dr. Cohen suggested that nothing presented at conference changes this. He also suggested that early treatment (after infection) with PIs is much better for restoration of immune system than later treatment. As for Glaxo/Vertex's drug (amprenivir?), it produced only a 60% suppression rate -- less impressive than hoped for. But there is a very good second therapy (using crix) for salvage. Amprenivir given twice a day (6 or 8 capsules) -- more pills than nelf (and thus not as convenient). Side effects: rash. Next drug (after amprenivir) will likely be Abbott 378. 378 must be used with Abbotts' other drug. Studies are currently in the first month. As for triple nuke combo -- jury still out, especially with patients with high viral load. Salvage therapy not likely. Also, did anybody else notice the SEC filing this week? If I'm not mistaken, Ark Asset Management (formally owners of several million shares), sold all its holdings. Probably made an absolute fortune on those shares since they bought them very, very cheap -- I believe. Still, somewhat troubling.