SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Andrew H who wrote (17721)3/19/1998 12:26:00 PM
From: Night Trader  Respond to of 32384
 
From Lehman's latest report:

* Ligand Pharmaceuticals has expanded its prior collaborative deal with
SmithKline Beecham plc to include the development of oral, small molecule
drugs which regulate the Leptin cytokine for the treatment or prevention of
obesity.
* The collaboration includes an equity investment, milestone payments and
future product royalties.
* Because SmithKline has expanded its initial deal (for the second time) to
include another target, we believe it provides validation of Ligand's
expertise in cytokines and JAK/STATs.
* The collaboration provides additional justification of our choosing Ligand
as part of our second annual holiday gift list.
* Over the next 12 months, we anticipate numerous additional clinical,
regulatory, and strategic news events. We view the current stock price as
attractive thus we reiterate our 1-Buy rating with a price target of $24.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
Ligand Pharmaceuticals has expanded its prior collaborative deal with
SmithKline Beecham plc to include the development of oral, small molecule
drugs indicated in treating or preventing obesity. Products would target
Leptin regulation of the JAK/STAT signal transduction pathway. The
collaboration provides for a $5.0 million equity investment in LGND stock at a
20% premium, a $1.0 million purchase of a warrant exercisable into 150,000
shares of LGND at a price of $20 with expiration in five years. In addition,
SmithKline will make milestone payments in the form of further equity
investments at a 20% premium and cash payments and will pay royalties on the
future sale of products stemming from the agreement.
CONCLUSION
Because SmithKline has expanded its initial deal (for the second time) to
include another target, we believe it provides validation of Ligand's
expertise in cytokines and JAK/STATs. It appears that SmithKline is confident
in not only Ligand's technology but also in the company's future prospects as
evidenced by its additional equity investment at a premium. The collaboration
provides additional justification of our choosing Ligand as part of our second
annual holiday gift list.
Among product highlights at Ligand, Targretin capsules are being used in phase
II/III trials for advanced lung cancer, phase IIb studies for ovarian cancer,
head and neck cancer and KS and phase II trials for Targretin Gel in actinic
keratosis. AHP, in collaboration with Ligand, will file an IND in 1Q98 for
TSE424, an estrogen receptor partial agonist, in osteoporosis.
NDAs in the 1998/99 time frame include those for Panretin Gel for KS in 1Q98,
Targretin Topical for CTCL in 2H98 and Targretin Oral in 2H98.
In conclusion, over the next 12 months, we anticipate numerous additional
clinical, regulatory, and strategic news events. We view the current stock
price as attractive thus we reiterate our 1-Buy rating with a price target of
$24.



To: Andrew H who wrote (17721)3/19/1998 12:56:00 PM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
I haven't checked with IR, but Lehman Brothers just said NDA this month.



To: Andrew H who wrote (17721)3/19/1998 12:58:00 PM
From: Henry Niman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 32384
 
Speaking of approvals (or lack thereof), ALTN just lost more than half of its value today as their TZD, Pimagedine (like Rezulin), did not fair well at the FDA:
Alteon tumbles on endangered Type 2 diabetes trial

NEW YORK, March 19 (Reuters) - Shares of Alteon Inc.
ALTN.O tumbled Thursday after a company advisory panel
recommended ending a late-stage trial of Alteon's candidate
drug pimagedine for Type II diabetic patients with overt
nephropathy, or kidney disease.
Shares were off 4-9/16 to 5-5/16, or 46 percent, in morning
trade.
The Ramsey, N.J., company said Wednesday its External
Safety Monitoring Committee advised ending the phase III trial
based on "observation of an increased incidence of side effects
in the Type II population" tested with the drug.
Alteon said the independent committee, comprised of
physicians and medical specialists, made its recommendation
after seeing data from a trial that began in July 1995 of 599
patients with adult-onset Type II diabetes.
Alteon said the committee, however, recommended
continuation of a Phase III trial of the drug among 690
patients with the typically more severe Type I early-onset form
of diabetes.
That trial, also of patients with nephropathy, began in
January 1994 and is expected to be completed late this year.



To: Andrew H who wrote (17721)3/19/1998 1:24:00 PM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
Jesse Eisinger of thestreet.com just did an article on ALTN and GNE. The article focused more on trading, but the clinical part indicated the halt recommendation was related to side effects:
"The committee didn't tell Alteon what the side effect issue
is. In earlier trials, Pimagedine has caused flu-like
symptoms, gastrointestinal distress and elevations in liver
function tests, which can indicate liver toxicity. Partner
Genentech (GNE:NYSE) and the Food and Drug
Administration will find out shortly what the side effects
are, and will determine whether to continue the trial.

Alteon can continue its Phase III trial in Type I, or
juvenile-onset patients, which is a smaller, but nonetheless
significant, market. The study will be completed by August
and the data could be available in October or November. The
committee looked at 66% of the data from the trial, called
Action I, suggesting that the safety issue isn't a problem in
that trial. One possible reason Type I patients might not be
susceptible to the side effects seen in the Type II study is
that they are younger and more resilient. "



To: Andrew H who wrote (17721)3/19/1998 1:56:00 PM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
Here's more news of interest (Vit D receptor is related to Vit A receptor):
Wednesday March 18 5:35 PM EST

Vitamin D Deficiency Is Common

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A majority of hospital patients have moderate or severe vitamin D deficiency, a study indicates. The
results suggest that vitamin D deficiency is also common in the general population.

Dr. Melissa K. Thomas, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues detected
vitamin D deficiency in 57% of 290 consecutive patients who were admitted to general hospital wards. The deficiency was
moderate in 34% of the subjects and severe in 22%, according to the report in the March 19th issue of The New England
Journal of Medicine.

Vitamin D is essential to healthy teeth and bones and it helps the body absorb and use calcium. Sun exposure stimulates vitamin
D production in the body, though fortified milk and other dairy products are the main source of the vitamin in food. Vitamin D
deficiency can increase the risk of broken bones, particularly in the elderly.

In a subset of 77 patients who had no known risk factors for vitamin D deficiency, the research team found that 42% were
vitamin D-deficient.

Those patients were younger and without chronic illnesses, Thomas told Reuters. "The high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency
tells us that vitamin D deficiency is probably a substantial problem in the general population."

Thomas explained that the Institute of Medicine now recommends higher intake of vitamin D than the previous recommended
daily allowance. "We analyzed our data with respect to the new guidelines," she said in an interview, "and 37% of the patients
who met the guidelines were still vitamin D-deficient."

"Because of the potential adverse effects of vitamin D deficiency on the skeleton and other organ systems," Thomas's group
concludes, "widespread screening for vitamin D deficiency or routine vitamin D supplementation should be considered."

"The results support the conclusions that many people do not take the recommended amount (of vitamin D), however defined,
and that this amount is too low anyway," according to an accompanying editorial by Dr. Robert D. Utiger, a deputy editor of
the journal. "On the basis of what we know about vitamin D, sick adults, older adults, and perhaps all adults probably need
800 to 1000 IU (international units) daily, substantially more than the newly established levels of adequate intake," he wrote.
SOURCE: The New England Journal of Medicine (1998;338:777-783, 828-829)



To: Andrew H who wrote (17721)3/19/1998 2:05:00 PM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
Here's more on the Vit D deficienies:
Vitamin D Deficiency Common In Hospital Inpatients

WESTPORT, Mar 19 (Reuters) - Moderate or severe vitamin D deficiency
is common among hospital inpatients, even those with no known risk factors
for the deficiency. The researchers who report these findings infer that
vitamin D deficiency is also common in the general population.

Dr. Melissa K. Thomas of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard
Medical School, Boston, and colleagues there and at two Australian sites
found that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration was deficient in 57%
of 290 consecutive patients admitted to general hospital wards. In the March
19th issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, they report that in 34%
of the subjects the deficiency was moderate, with a serum concentration of 8
to 15 ng/mL, and that in 22% it was severe, at less than 8 ng/mL.

The research team's assessment of common risk factors was only 59% to
68% effective in predicting which patients would be vitamin-D deficient.
"[S]creening by using serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations may be
required to identify patients with vitamin D deficiency," Dr. Thomas's group
concludes.

In a subset of 77 patients who had no known risk factors for vitamin D
deficiency, 42% were vitamin-D deficient. "Those patients were younger and
without chronic illnesses, the type of patient who might come in with atypical
chest pain for a day of observation," Dr. Thomas told Reuters Health. "The
high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency tells us that vitamin D deficiency is
probably a substantial problem in the general population."

Dr. Thomas observed that the Institute of Medicine now recommends higher
intake of vitamin D than the previous recommended daily allowance. "We
analyzed our data with respect to the new guidelines," she told Reuters
Health, "and 37% of the patients who met the guidelines were still vitamin-D
deficient."

"Because of the potential adverse effects of vitamin D deficiency on the
skeleton and other organ systems," Dr. Thomas's group concludes,
"widespread screening for vitamin D deficiency or routine vitamin D
supplementation should be considered."

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Robert D. Utiger, a deputy editor of the
journal, specifies that "...sick adults, older adults, and perhaps all adults
probably need 800 to 1000 IU daily, substantially more than the newly
established levels of adequate intake."

N Engl J Med 1998;338:777-783,828-829.

-Westport Newsroom 203 319 2700



To: Andrew H who wrote (17721)3/23/1998 7:57:00 AM
From: Henry Niman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 32384
 
Here's more on Evista:
By Jenifer Joseph
ABCNEWS.com
March 19 - Maybe you've seen the splashy ads for a hot new drug called Evista. Perhaps your doctor has already prescribed it for you, because you're one of the 18 million Americans at risk for osteoporosis, or brittle bone disease.
ÿÿÿÿ As the first entry in a new class of medications, Evista was launched with high hopes shortly after the Food and Drug Administration OK'd it last December, just six months after drugmaker Eli Lilly applied for approval.
ÿÿÿÿEvista is the brand name for raloxifene, a synthetic estrogen that was shown in clinical trials to protect post-menopausal women against osteoporosis-without the side effects of estrogen.
ÿÿÿÿIn February, doctors wrote 27,000 prescriptions for Evista, somewhat below the manufacturers' and business analysts' predictions.
ÿÿÿÿAccording to Dr. Samuel Epstein, a professor of environmental and public health at the University of Illinois in Chicago, that's 27,000 prescriptions too many.
ÿÿÿÿEpstein would like to see Evista pulled off the market altogether and cancer warnings sent to everyone taking the drug. His reasoning: In tests done by Eli Lilly, the drug was linked to ovarian tumors in mice and rats; low doses were associated with benign tumors, and high doses with malignant tumors. <Picture: Evista Ad>Ads for Evista have appeared in newspapers and magazines. (Eli Lilly)
ÿÿÿÿAs Epstein points out, the package insert that comes with Evista says that "the clinical relevance of these tumor findings is not known." In his view, that information gap may pose a serious problem for women who take Evista.
ÿÿÿÿ "It could be decades before ovarian cancer shows up in women," as opposed to rodents, Epstein says. "We shouldn't put 20 million women at risk." In addition, he says, "Lilly designed the study to prove overall safety, and when it turned out that it wasn't safe, they didn't disclose this to women."

Of Mice and Women
Not everyone agrees with Epstein, of course, including Eli Lilly. The drug did get FDA approval (though some on the agency's advisory committee voted against it), and at least one osteoporosis expert characterizes Epstein's claims as reckless.
ÿÿÿÿ"What he's saying is an outrage," says Dr. Ethel Siris, director of Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center's osteoporosis program. "It's a mouse-specific phenomenon. There's no relevance to women."
ÿÿÿÿSiris, who was one of the physicians involved in the clinical trials for Evista, has not a smidgen of concern that her patients taking Evista will get ovarian cancer. After all, she says, "I don't see any mice in my practice."
ÿÿÿÿIn a way, Siris' remark perfectly summarizes the questions Epstein raises about Evista and ovarian-cancer risks. Will a drug that causes tumors in rodents necessarily have the same effect on women? And what exactly is the mechanism that produces ovarian tumors? Is it the same in rodents as it is in humans?

Rodents Are Different From You and Me
Eli Lilly's theory is this: Evista raises the levels of the luteinizing hormone (LH) that drives the ovaries to produce eggs, and any condition that raises LH levels in rats and mice will increase the chance that a tumor will form.
ÿÿÿÿ"That's been demonstrated before," says Lilly endocrinologist Dr. Leo Plouffe. However, Plouffe notes, the drug did not increase LH levels in post-menopausal women, and as a result, the women in the Evista trials didn't develop ovarian tumors in any significant numbers.
ÿÿÿÿThe problem with Eli Lilly's rodent theory, say cancer experts around the country, is that it's just that.
ÿÿÿÿ"We don't know what causes ovarian tumors," says Dr. Beth Karlan, director of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's ovarian cancer program in Los Angeles. "It's just a theory that we don't know to be true."

No Easy Approval
That worries the people at the National Women's Health Network, a medical watchdog group.
ÿÿÿÿ"Unlike other cancers, we know very little about ovarian cancer," says executive director Cynthia Pearson. "So this is treacherous territory. We shouldn't rubber-stamp this drug if the risks have been discarded based on a theory that isn't accepted by everyone."
ÿÿÿÿIn fact, after a full day of detailed discussion about the drug's safety and efficacy, four members of the 12-person FDA advisory committee weren't willing to give that rubber-stamp.
ÿÿÿÿDr. Jose Cara of the Henry Ford Hospital was one of those who turned it down, partly because of the ovarian cancer risk, and partly because of the fact that, while the drug has been shown to increase bone density, studies to determine whether it actually reduces bone fractures won't be completed for another six months. That, he says, will be the true test of the drug's worth.
ÿÿÿÿ"We're always faced with the difficulty of getting drugs approved quickly while trying to determine whether they're safe," Cara says. "We have to balance animal studies with clinical data, so it's a tough call."
ÿÿÿÿStill, Eli Lilly officials maintain, the most important fact about Evista's safety is that it has not been linked to ovarian tumors in the thousands of women who participated in the drug's clinical trials, which lasted for three years.
ÿÿÿÿ"The key issue is what's happening in women," says Dr. Willard Dere, Lilly's director of endocrine research. "We have carefully evaluated over 13,000 women, and there is no evidence at all that there an increase in ovarian cancer."
ÿÿÿÿOnly six women were found to have had cancer during the trials, which is actually a lower rate than what would normally show up in the general population.
ÿÿÿÿThat's certainly reassuring information for Evista takers-for now. Sometimes, once a drug hits the market and the population of people taking it expands, side effects and risks emerge that weren't obvious in the clinical trial phase. People like Samuel Epstein and Cynthia Pearson will be watching see if this happens with Evista.

Who Gets Ovarian Cancer and Why Ovarian cancer is relatively rare but serious. The lifetime risk that a woman will develop ovarian cancer is 1 in 70, and two-thirds of these women die from the disease, according to the National Cancer Institute. The average age of diagnosis is 61.
ÿÿÿÿOvarian cancer occurs when cells on the outer lining of the ovaries grow and divide uncontrollably. It can spread throughout the body, but is most likely to metastasize to abdominal organs.
ÿÿÿÿAccording to Dr. Steve Narod at the Center for Research in Women's Health at the University of Toronto, ovarian cancer has the highest heredity incidence of any cancer. When it comes to genetic ties, he says, "It's the only one we're sure of beyond any doubt."
ÿÿÿÿWomen who have the genetic <Picture> mutations BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 are at the greatest risk. Those with the BRCA-1 mutation have a 45 percent risk, and those with the BRCA-2 mutation have a 25 percent chance. Eleven percent of all ovarian cancers are due to these gene mutations.
ÿÿÿÿOther risk factors include the use of talcum powder in the vaginal area; ovarian-stimulating drugs used before in vitro fertilization; and not having children.
ÿÿÿÿHaving babies protects against the disease, says Narod. "The more you have, the better."
ÿÿÿÿFor women who carry one of the gene mutations, taking birth control pills can reduce their five-year risk by 50 percent. Tubal ligation and hysterectomy may also lower the risk in women with BRCA mutations.