I'm looking forward to the quarterly earnings that will be released after the bell today, and in what will be said at the conference call after that. The weekly prescription data (which I don't have) are immaterial now, imo.
Here's the article from the current BW referred to in a previous post (someone posted it on AOL.)
Business Week: April 20, 1998
>Developments to Watch
>"SMALL BIOTECH COMPANY, BIG AIDS DRUG
"ANALYSTS HARBOR HIGH expectations for Agouron Pharmaceuticals Inc. when it reports its third-quarter results in mid-April. Analysts are looking for revenues of $128 million--up 231%--and a $13 million profit, compared with a $5 million loss a year earlier. What they're seeing is the stunning success of the 13-year-old La Jolla (Calif.) company's first product, an anti-AIDS drug called Viracept. Viracept, a protease inhibitor used in the triple-drug
therapy that has helped many AIDS patients, has become the biggest new drug launch from a biotech company--sales were close to $300 million in the first year. In fact, Viracept is the fourth-biggest new drug launch ever.
Agouron pulled this off despite grueling competition from the much larger pharmaceutical companies Merck, Abbott Laboratories, and Hoffmann-La Roche. Viracept has garnered a 30% market share, compared with about 35% from Merck's Crixivan. Because it's priced slightly higher, Viracept is now the best-selling protease inhibitor. It also beat the competition because it is more convenient to take and just as effective.
Still, Wall Street has not been kind to Agouron. In December, its stock plunged 25% when the company announced that Roche had pulled out of a partnership to co-develop anticancer treatments. It's not the first time Agouron has been dropped by a partner. In the early 1990s, Eli Lilly & Co. walked away from a partnership--to develop Viracept."
>By Larry Armstrong, edited by Neil Gross
Agouron certainly benefited from Eli Lilly's decision to end that collaboration as Viracept went on to become such a success. Wouldn't it be fitting if Agouron produced another blockbuster from any of the anti-cancer drugs in its pipeline that it now has all the rights to, thanks to Roche's departure.
To me this statement below, from a recent post, epitomizes some of these incorrect perceptions that abound.
>Isn't the basic problem with AGPH that there are too many competing >drugs in the pipeline. The key competitive issues for anti-viral >drugs are their side effects and treatment regime. We saw with the >results of Preveon announced, that several drugs are moving to >market that have better quality of life features, while still >providing effective anti-viral activity.
I know this is being repetitive but so are the constant incorrect allegations made about Viracept and Agouron. As mentioned in the above article and as most of us know, many consider Viracept superior to the other protease inhibitors on the market. Viracept was able to obtain this 30% market share in only one year, because of its favorable profile: less side effects, more convenient, same potency, favorable cross-resistance profile etc.
Another fallacy is that other drugs are moving to market quickly that will replace Viracept. There are no drugs in other companies pipeline that will replace Viracept anytime soon. Abbot's protease inhibitor, ABT378, with claims of great potency,is only in Phase II. Vertex's protease inhibitor, a long time in clinical trials, does not appear as superior as they had once thought.
At any rate, there is a need for new drugs and there is room for other protease inhibitors for those who develop resistance or who are unable to tolerate any particular side effects. The recent NEJM article describing the much higher than expected cuts in death and disease attributed mainly to the inclusion of protease inhibitors in the 'cocktail' showed that protease inhibitors will not be replaced anytime soon, in spite of the side effects.
The recently approved drugs (some still for compassionate use) such as Preveon, Abacavir, Sustiva, Delavirdine, Nevirapine, are not protease inhibitors and do not compete against protease inhibitors, as Bill Kirn pointed out. They are in addition to, not in place of protease inhibitors. I don't know what "better quality of life" any of these drugs have, they all have their pluses and minuses, and some have very significant side effects, like Abacavir's potentially life-threatening sensitivity reaction has occurred in 3-5% of patients. Preveon, a nonnucloeotide reverse transcriptase, taken once a day, useful for resistant cases, active against CMV and and possibly hepatitis B; produces only very mild antiviral activity and needs to be taken with other drugs, and patients need to be monitored for kidney toxicity.
The other type of possible future treatments, like chemokines, anti-fusion agents, T-cell therapy, gene therapy, monoclonal antibodies, etc are several years away from clinical use. Many are not even in clinical trials. Immunotherapy will not be replace the current treatments, but will be used "in addition to." |
