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: Hippieslayer who wrote (19395)4/22/1998 8:36:00 AM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
FUGAZI, One of the criticisms for the Tamoxifen trial halt was a lack of info on the points that you raised (does it prevent breast cancer of just delay it). However, the NCI has switched to a Tomoxifen vs Evista (Raloxifene) prevention trial because the osteoporosis trial suggests that the prevention rate may be higher for Evista than Tamoxifen for preventing breast cancer.

However, LLY has another SERM (LY353381) that is supposed to be more powerful than Evista (and I suspect that this compound along with LGD1268 or LGD1324 is the target of the LLY/LGND program on combination treatment of breast cancer with SERMs and Rexinoids).



To: Hippieslayer who wrote (19395)4/22/1998 8:37:00 AM
From: Henry Niman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 32384
 
Here's another SERM (SBH's Idoxifene) in Phase III trials for the treatment of breast cancer (similar to the PFE Droloxifene trial that was switched to breast cancer prevention trial):
Phase III Study of Idoxifene vs Tamoxifen in Postmenopausal Women with Metastatic Breast
Cancer

Summary Last Modified: 04/98

Protocol IDs: SB-223030/010, NCI-V98-1383

Protocol Type: treatment

Sponsorship: pharmaceutical

Status: Active, New

Age Range: 18 and over (postmenopausal)

PROJECTED ACCRUAL:

A total of 440 patients will be accrued for this study within 3 years.

OBJECTIVES:

I. Compare the response rates and time to progression in patients with
metastatic breast cancer treated with idoxifene or tamoxifen as first line
hormonal therapy.

II. Compare the time to response, response duration, and survival rates of
these patients after these treatments.

III. Compare the toxic effects of these two treatments in these patients.

IV. Determine and compare the effects of these two treatments on the
patients' quality of life.

PROTOCOL ENTRY CRITERIA:

--Disease Characteristics--

Histologically or cytologically proven primary breast cancer
Clinical or radiological evidence of stage IV breast cancer

Measurable or evaluable disease
Evaluable lytic bone lesions allowed

Progressive disease occurred greater than 12 months after prior adjuvant
hormonal therapy

No inflammatory breast cancer

Hormone receptor status:
Estrogen receptor positive OR
Progesterone receptor positive

--Prior/Concurrent Therapy--

Biologic therapy:
At least 4 weeks since prior immunotherapy
No concurrent immunotherapy

Chemotherapy:
At least 4 weeks since prior chemotherapy
No greater than 1 prior chemotherapy regimen for breast cancer (except
adjuvant chemotherapy)
No concurrent chemotherapy

Endocrine therapy:
At least 12 months since prior adjuvant hormonal therapy (e.g., tamoxifen)
No other prior hormonal therapy
No concurrent chronic corticosteroids
No other concurrent hormonal therapy

Radiotherapy:
No concurrent radiotherapy
Palliative radiotherapy of bone lesions allowed, if not only site of study
disease

Surgery:
At least 2 weeks since major surgery and/or recovered

Other:
At least 30 days or 5 half-lives (whichever is longer) since prior
investigational therapy
No concurrent coumarin type anticoagulants
No concurrent bisphosphonates if bone is the only site of study disease

--Patient Characteristics--

Age:
18 and over

Sex:
Female

Menopausal status:
Postmenopausal
FSH at least 35 IU/L AND
LH at least 40 IU/L

Performance status:
ECOG 0-2

Life expectancy:
At least 4 months

Hematopoietic:
WBC at least 3500/mm3
Neutrophil count at least 1500/mm3
Platelet count at least 100,000/mm3
Hemoglobin at least 9.0 g/dL (transfusion allowed)

Hepatic:
Bilirubin no greater than 2.0 mg/dL
SGOT and SGPT no greater than 2 times upper limit of normal (ULN) (no greater
than 5 times ULN if liver metastases present)
Alkaline phosphatase no greater than 2 times ULN (no greater than 5 times ULN
if liver metastases present)

Renal:
Creatinine no greater than 1.5 ULN OR
Creatinine clearance at least 60 mL/min

Other:
No known hypersensitivity to tamoxifen or tamoxifen analogues
No concurrent medical or psychiatric conditions
No prior malignancies within 5 years except:
Curatively treated basal and squamous cell skin cancer
Curatively treated carcinoma in situ of the cervix

PROTOCOL OUTLINE:

This is a randomized, double blind, multicenter study.

Patients are randomized to receive either idoxifene or tamoxifen. Idoxifene
is administered orally, 2 tablets daily for 21 days, then 1 tablet daily for
the duration of therapy. Tamoxifen is also administered orally, 1 tablet of
tamoxifen plus 1 tablet of placebo given for 21 days, then 1 tablet of
tamoxifen for the duration of therapy. Patients may continue on therapy until
disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurs.

Patients complete a quality of life questionnaire every 3 months for the
duration of the study.

Patients are followed every 3 months for survival.

WARNING:

The purpose of most clinical trials listed in this database is to test new
cancer treatments, or new methods of diagnosing, screening, or preventing
cancer. Because all potentially harmful side effects are not known before a
trial is conducted, dose and schedule modifications may be required for
participants if they develop side effects from the treatment or test. The
therapy or test described in this clinical trial is intended for use by
clinical oncologists in carefully structured settings, and may not prove to be
more effective than standard treatment. A responsible investigator associated
with this clinical trial should be consulted before using this protocol.

PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS/INVESTIGATORS

Robert Eric Corringham, Chair,
SmithKline Beecham



To: Hippieslayer who wrote (19395)4/22/1998 10:03:00 AM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
Here's NCI's Q&A on the trial:

This document describes preliminary results from the Breast
Cancer Prevention Trial. It is divided into three sections:

Background and Study Design (questions 1-12);
Preliminary Trial Results/Notifications (questions 13-24)
Public Concerns (questions 25-37)

Background and Study Design

1. What is the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial?

The Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT) is a clinical trial (a
research study conducted with people) designed to see
whether taking the drug tamoxifen (Nolvadexr) can prevent
breast cancer in women who are at an increased risk of
developing the disease. The BCPT is also looking at whether
taking tamoxifen decreases the number of heart attacks and
reduces the number of bone fractures in these women. The
study began recruiting participants in April 1992 and closed
enrollment in September 1997; 13,388 women ages 35 and
older are enrolled. Researchers with the National Surgical
Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) are conducting
the study in more than 300 centers across the United States
and Canada. The study is funded by the National Cancer
Institute (NCI), the United States' primary agency for cancer
research.

2. What is tamoxifen?

Tamoxifen is a drug, taken by mouth as a pill. It has been used
for 25 years to treat patients with advanced breast cancer.
Since 1985 it has also been recommended in the United States
for adjuvant, or additional, therapy, following surgery and/or
radiation for early stage breast cancer. Tamoxifen works
against breast cancer, in part, by interfering with the activity of
estrogen, a female hormone that promotes the growth of breast
cancer cells. For this reason, tamoxifen is often called an
"anti-estrogen." In treatment, the drug slows or stops the
growth of these cancer cells.

3. Why was tamoxifen tested to prevent breast cancer?

Research has shown that taking tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy
for breast cancer not only helps prevent the original breast
cancer from returning but also helps to prevent the
development of new cancers in the opposite breast.
Researchers believed that tamoxifen might have a similar
beneficial effect for women at increased risk of breast cancer.
While tamoxifen acts against the effects of estrogen in breast
tissue, it acts like estrogen in other body systems. Tamoxifen's
estrogen-like effects include the lowering of blood cholesterol
and the slowing of bone loss.

4. Who participated in the BCPT?

Women at increased risk for developing breast cancer
participated in the study. These included women 60 years of
age and older who qualified to participate based on age alone,
and women between the ages of 35 and 59 with an increased
risk of breast cancer equivalent to or greater than that of a
60-year-old woman. At age 60, about 17 of every 1,000
women are expected to develop breast cancer within five
years.

Of the 13,388 women on the trial, about 40 percent were ages
35 to 49, about 30 percent were ages 50 to 59, and about 30
percent were age 60 or older. About 3 percent of the
participants were minorities, including African American, Asian
American, Hispanic, and other groups.

5. Did every woman in the study receive tamoxifen?

No. Participants in the BCPT were randomized (selected by
chance) to receive either tamoxifen or a placebo (an inactive
pill that looked like tamoxifen). In a process known as "double
blinding," neither the participant nor her physician knew which
pill she was receiving. Setting up a study in this way allowed
the researchers to clearly see what the true benefits and side
effects of tamoxifen are without the influence of other factors.
According to the design, all women in the study were to take
two pills a day for five years, either a 20-mg dose of tamoxifen
(two 10-mg pills) or placebo pills.

6. Why were women 60 years of age or older eligible for the
BCPT based on age alone?

Many diseases, including breast cancer, occur more often in
older persons. The risk of developing breast cancer increases
with age, so breast cancer occurs more commonly in women
over 60 years of age. The risk of developing heart disease or
osteoporosis also increases with age, and those diseases are
also being studied in the BCPT.

7. What factors were used to determine increased risk of
breast cancer for the participants aged 35 to 59?

To enroll in the study, women between 35 and 59 years of age
needed to have a risk of developing breast cancer within the
next five years that was equal to or greater than the average
risk for 60-year-old women. This increased risk was
determined in one of two ways. Women diagnosed as having
lobular carcinoma in situ, a condition that is not cancer but
indicates an increased chance of developing invasive breast
cancer, were eligible based on that diagnosis alone. The risk
for other women was determined by a computer calculation
based on the following factors:

Number of first-degree relatives (mother, daughters, or
sisters) who had been diagnosed as having breast cancer;
Whether a woman had any children and her age at her first
delivery;
The number of times a woman had breast lumps biopsied,
especially if the tissue was shown to have a condition known as
atypical hyperplasia; and
The woman's age at her first menstrual period.

For example, a 35-year-old woman would have to have two
or more first-degree relatives with breast cancer AND a
personal history of at least one benign breast biopsy OR a
diagnosis of lobular carcinoma in situ.

A 45-year-old woman would have to have one or more
first-degree relatives with breast cancer AND a personal
history of at least one benign breast biopsy OR a diagnosis of
lobular carcinoma in situ.

A 55-year-old woman would have to have one or more
first-degree relatives with breast cancer OR a personal history
of at least one benign breast biopsy OR a diagnosis of lobular
carcinoma in situ.

8. What proportion of women in the United States are
estimated to be at the level of risk required for participation in
the BCPT?

At age 35, about three women in 1,000 or .3 percent, would
have qualified for the study based on their estimated breast
cancer risk.
At age 40, the proportion is about 27 women in 1,000, or 2.7
percent.
At age 45, the proportion is about 71 women in 1,000, or 7.1
percent.
At age 50, the proportion is about 93 women in 1,000, or 9.3
percent.
At age 55, the proportion is about 125 women in 1,000, or
12.5 percent.
At age 60 and beyond, all women would have met the breast
cancer risk criteria.

9. Did other factors affect eligibility for the study?

Certain existing health conditions affected eligibility for the
study. For example, women at increased risk for blood clots
could not participate. Also, women taking hormone
replacements and women using oral contraceptives ("the pill")
could not take part in the trial unless they stopped taking these
medications. Those who stopped taking these hormones were
eligible for the study three months after they discontinued the
drugs.

Women who were pregnant or who planned to become
pregnant were not eligible to participate. Animal studies have
suggested that the use of tamoxifen during pregnancy might
harm the fetus. Premenopausal women participating in the
BCPT were required to use some method of birth control other
than oral contraceptives. Oral contraceptives may change the
effects of tamoxifen and may also affect the risk of breast
cancer.

10. Were the participants required to have any medical exams?

Participants were required to have blood tests, a pelvic exam,
a mammogram, and a physical exam before being accepted
into the study. Women 55 years of age and older needed to
have an electrocardiogram or ECG (a test to measure the
heart's muscular activity), in addition to the other tests.
Screening endometrial sampling (an examination of cells from
the lining of the uterus) was required at entry for participants
joining the study beginning in October 1994 and was strongly
recommended annually for all women in the study. These tests
were repeated periodically.

11. Who paid for these medical exams?

Most physicians' fees and the costs of medical tests were
charged to the participant as if she were not part of the study;
however, the costs for these tests were often covered by the
participant's insurance company. Screening endometrial
samplings were provided without charge. For women over 55,
the required electrocardiograms were also done at no cost.
Every effort was made to contain the costs specifically
associated with participation in this study, and a fund was
available to cover costs for participants without the ability to
pay.

12. How much did the tamoxifen cost the participants?

There was no charge to participants for the tamoxifen or the
placebo. The company that manufactures tamoxifen, Zeneca
Pharmaceuticals Group, of Wilmington, Del., (formerly ICI
Americas, Inc.) provided both the tamoxifen and the placebo
without charge.

Questions and Answers: Preliminary Trial
Results/Notifications

13. What are the initial results of the BCPT?

At this point (data to Jan. 31, 1998), women on the trial have
been followed on the study for about four years. Results show
45 percent fewer diagnoses of invasive breast cancer in women
who were randomized to take tamoxifen compared to women
who were randomized to take the placebo (85 cases in the
tamoxifen group versus 154 cases in the placebo group).
Women on tamoxifen also had fewer diagnoses of noninvasive
breast cancer, such as ductal carcinoma in situ (31 cases in the
tamoxifen group versus 59 cases in the placebo group). Eight
women have died of breast cancer, three women in the
tamoxifen group and five women in the placebo group.

Women in the tamoxifen group had fewer bone fractures of the
hip, wrist, and spine than women in the placebo group (47
cases in the tamoxifen group versus 71 cases in the placebo
group). There was no difference in the number of heart attacks
between the two groups.

Tamoxifen did increase the women's chances of three rare but
serious health problems: endometrial cancer (cancer of the
lining of the uterus) 33 cases in the tamoxifen group versus 14
cases in the placebo group; pulmonary embolism (blood clot in
the lung) 17 cases in the tamoxifen group versus 6 cases in the
placebo group; and deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in major
veins) 30 cases in the tamoxifen group versus 19 cases in the
placebo group.

14. What were the participants' chances of developing
endometrial cancer?

BCPT participants who were randomized to the tamoxifen
group had more than twice the chance of developing
endometrial cancer compared with women on placebo (based
on 33 cases in the tamoxifen group versus 14 cases in the
placebo group). The increased risk of endometrial cancer was
equal to the risk that was expected and is in the same range as
(or less than) the endometrial cancer risk for postmenopausal
women taking single-agent estrogen replacement therapy.
Estrogens and agents that act like estrogens are known to
increase the risk of endometrial cancer.

All the participants were informed about the possibility of
increased risk of endometrial cancer before they entered the
study. Like all cancers, endometrial cancer is potentially
life-threatening. All but one (in the placebo group) of the
endometrial cancers that occurred during the study were found
at an early stage, when treatment is very effective. However,
one participant (also in the placebo group) died of endometrial
cancer. About 37 percent of BCPT participants in both groups
had a hysterectomy (surgery to remove the uterus) for a variety
of health reasons before joining the study. Therefore, these
women were not at any risk for endometrial cancer.

15. What was done to help diagnose endometrial cancer early?

Pap smears are very effective at detecting cancer in the cervix
but are not useful for detecting endometrial cancer. Therefore a
screening endometrial sampling < removal of cells in the lining of
the uterus for examination under a microscope < was used in
the BCPT to detect abnormalities in the endometrium. Women
who joined the study after October 1994 were required to
have a screening endometrial sampling before entering the
study if their uterus had not been removed. All women in the
study were strongly urged to have screening endometrial
sampling done annually throughout the study (at no cost to
them), but could decline if they chose. In addition to these
annual tests, women in the BCPT were told to see their
physicians if they experienced abnormal vaginal bleeding or
pain. The vast majority of the endometrial cancers that were
diagnosed in the BCPT caused such symptoms.

16. What were the participants' chances of getting blood clots?

Women taking tamoxifen had almost three times the chance of
developing a pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lung) as
women on placebo (based on 17 cases in the tamoxifen group
versus 6 cases in the placebo group). Two women died from
these embolisms, both in the tamoxifen group. Women in the
tamoxifen group were also more likely to have deep vein
thrombosis (a blood clot in a major vein) than women on
placebo (30 cases versus 19 cases). Blood clots occur more
often in people with high blood pressure (hypertension),
diabetes, smokers, and in those who are obese.

17. Is there a relationship between tamoxifen use and the
development of eye problems?

Women in the tamoxifen group, in general, had no more eye
problems than women taking the placebo. However, women
taking tamoxifen may be at a slightly increased risk for
developing cataracts (a clouding of the lens inside the eye)
according to other research. As women age, they are more
likely to develop cataracts whether or not they take tamoxifen.
Other eye problems, such as corneal scarring or retinal
changes, have been reported in a few breast cancer patients in
tamoxifen treatment trials.

18. Was tamoxifen associated with any other cancers?

Tamoxifen was not associated with an increased risk of any
other cancer other than endometrial cancer.

19. What were the other adverse effects of tamoxifen?

Like most medications, whether over-the-counter medications,
prescription drugs, or drugs in research studies, tamoxifen
causes adverse effects in some women. The effects
experienced most often by women in the tamoxifen group were
hot flashes and vaginal discharge. Women in both groups
reported sometimes having side effects < even though the
placebo itself would not cause any symptoms. The side effects
that some women in both groups reported included: vaginal
dryness, itching, or bleeding; menstrual irregularities;
depression; loss of appetite; nausea and/or vomiting; dizziness;
headaches; and fatigue. Treatments that could minimize or
eliminate most side effects were available to the participants.

20. Did any group of women benefit more from tamoxifen than
others?

It is possible that the breast cancer benefit from tamoxifen
could be greater in women over age 50, but older women are
also at increased risk for some of the serious side effects
(endometrial cancer, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein
thrombosis).

21. Why was the study "unblinded," and who made that
decision?

As part of the study design, the BCPT data were regularly
reviewed by an independent Endpoint Review, Safety
Monitoring, and Advisory Committee (ERSMAC). At its
regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 1998, the committee
recommended to NSABP that the study be unblinded (inform
the participants and their physicians what pills the participants
had been taking) because of the clear evidence of a reduction
of breast cancer incidence in the tamoxifen group. The NSABP
presented the data and recommendation to the NCI on March
26 and together, NSABP and NCI researchers concurred with
the committee's recommendation. This was based upon the
assessment of all three groups that the effect of tamoxifen in the
reduction of breast cancer had been demonstrated. It was
agreed that any additional information that could be gained
from continuing the study in its current form did not outweigh
the benefits of making the treatment available to the participants
in the placebo group and other women at an increased risk of
breast cancer.

22. How were the participants notified?

At the inception of the study, the NSABP made a commitment
to make every effort to notify the participants of major results
prior to any public announcement. After notification to the
BCPT Participant Advisory Board, a group of 16 women in
the trial, a letter announcing initial results and details for
participant "unblinding" was rapidly sent to BCPT investigators
so that they could convey this information to BCPT
participants.

23. What will the participants do now?

All participants are being asked to continue with their follow-up
examinations. Women who have been randomized to the
tamoxifen group who have not completed five years of
tamoxifen therapy will have the opportunity to continue on
therapy. Postmenopausal women who had been taking the
placebo are being invited to participate in an upcoming trial that
will compare tamoxifen to a different drug that could have
similar breast cancer prevention properties, but might be
associated with fewer adverse effects. Women of any age on
placebo also have the option of seeking tamoxifen from their
private health care providers.

24. Would it be beneficial for women to take tamoxifen for
more than five years?

Not necessarily: Results of another NSABP study in which
women with early stage breast cancer took tamoxifen for 5
years versus 10 years (called the B-14 trial) showed no greater
benefit from the longer duration of tamoxifen and showed a
trend toward more adverse effects.

Questions and Answers: Public Concerns




To: Hippieslayer who wrote (19395)4/22/1998 10:22:00 AM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
Questions and Answers: Public Concerns

25. Was any special effort made to include minority women on
the trial?

Throughout the trial, several strategies were used to increase
participation of women from racial and ethnic minority groups.
These strategies included placing study-related recruitment
materials in businesses and churches located in minority
communities; collaborating with a minority-owned public
relations firm to develop a structured media campaign targeting
racial and ethnic minorities; developing and broadly
disseminating a Public Service Announcement that featured
singer Nancy Wilson; and communicating information to study
sites about how other sites successfully reached racial and
ethnic minorities.

When the early strategies did not attract sufficient numbers of
minority participants, the NSABP launched the Pilot Minority
Recruitment Program in August 1996. The goal of the program
was to increase participation by increasing awareness and
educating minority populations about the trial. A
multidimensional approach was used: Community Outreach
Coordinators employed at five BCPT sites offered
personalized presentations on breast cancer risk factors,
incidence, and survival rates, and on clinical trial research at
African-American churches, community hospitals and health
clinics, health fairs, public housing sites, businesses, and local
chapters of sororities, the Urban League, and minority medical
societies. In less than a year, these strategies enabled the
coordinators to establish many relationships in their
communities. As a result of these efforts, the number of Risk
Assessment Forms submitted by minority groups increased,
and during this period, the BCPT experienced the highest level
of randomizations from racial and ethnic minority groups since
the trial began. The Pilot Minority Recruitment Program has
been the most effective strategy to date and will serve as the
model for minority recruitment for future prevention trials.

26. Will the study results be published?

Further analyses of the data are under way. A manuscript will
be prepared and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.

27. Based on the BCPT results, should women who are at
increased risk of breast cancer take tamoxifen?

Women who are at increased risk of breast cancer now have
the option to consider taking tamoxifen to reduce their chances
of developing breast cancer. As with any medical procedure or
intervention, the decision to take tamoxifen is an individual one
in which the benefits and risks of the therapy must be
considered. The balance of these benefits and risks will vary
depending on a woman's personal health history and how she
weighs the benefits and risks. Therefore even if a woman is at
increased risk of breast cancer, tamoxifen therapy may not be
appropriate for her. Women who are considering tamoxifen
therapy should talk with their health care provider.

28. How can a woman learn more about the next breast cancer
prevention trial?

The NSABP is planning a new breast cancer prevention trial,
tentatively scheduled to begin in fall 1998. The trial would
involve postmenopausal women who are at least 35-years-old
and are at increased risk for developing breast cancer. The
study would compare tamoxifen to another drug.

There are several ways to be placed on a mailing list for more
information on this upcoming trial by Internet, by mail, or by
fax. On the Internet, the NSABP homepage has a form
available. By regular mail, send a letter or post card with name,
mailing address, and a note specifying interest in future breast
cancer prevention trials to: NSABP, Box 21, Pittsburgh, Pa.
15261. Or fax the same information to NSABP at (412)
330-4664. When information about the next prevention trial is
available, it will be mailed to the people on this list.

29. How does a woman determine whether she is at increased
risk of breast cancer?

BCPT participants had their risk for developing breast cancer
calculated using age, family history, and medical information in
a computer program that also estimated their likelihood of
developing heart disease, endometrial cancer, and blood clots.
Some private physicians use computer calculations in their
practice to assess breast cancer risk, but because these are not
identical to the program used in the BCPT, it is unclear how
well those programs would identify women at increased risk.
The NSABP and NCI plan to make information available
which will assist a woman and her health care provider to
determine whether her risk is comparable to the women who
participated in the BCPT.

30. Will women with breast cancer gene alterations (BRCA1
and BRCA2) benefit from tamoxifen?

These two breast cancer gene alterations, which increase a
woman's risk of the disease, were first identified after the
BCPT began. Using blood samples taken from participants,
analyses are under way to determine whether tamoxifen has the
same relative effects on women whether or not they carry
alterations in these genes. To maintain strict confidentiality,
samples in this study have no identifying labels that could link
them to individual women. Therefore, researchers will not be
able to give individual results to a participant or her health care
provider.

31. Is tamoxifen a good substitute for hormone replacement
therapy?

No. Every woman has individual health risks that affect her
need for interventions such as hormone replacement therapy or
tamoxifen therapy. Hormone replacement therapy is intended
to help women maintain bone density. It may also reduce the
risk of heart disease in postmenopausal women, and many
women benefit from a reduction in hot flashes and other
problems that can affect quality of life. Some studies have
suggested that hormone replacement therapy increases a
woman's chances of developing breast cancer.

The BCPT results show that tamoxifen reduces breast cancer
risk and may help slow or reduce bone loss, as evidenced by
the reduced number of bone fractures, but it did not decrease
heart disease risk. A woman with a large risk of heart disease
may not have the same benefit from tamoxifen as from
hormone replacement therapy.

32. Should women who are not at a demonstrated increased
risk of breast cancer consider taking tamoxifen?

This question has not been studied. At this time, there is no
evidence that tamoxifen is beneficial for women who do not
have an increased risk of breast cancer.

33. Are there any women who should not take tamoxifen?

Animal studies have suggested that the use of tamoxifen during
pregnancy might harm the fetus. Women who were pregnant or
who planned to become pregnant were not eligible to
participate in the BCPT. Premenopausal women participating
in the BCPT were required to use some method of birth
control other than oral contraceptives ("the pill") while taking
tamoxifen. Oral contraceptives may change the effects of
tamoxifen and may also affect the risk of breast cancer.
Women with a history of blood clots, hypertension, diabetes,
and cigarette smoking must also consider that tamoxifen
increases the risk for serious blood clots.

34. How much does a standard dose of tamoxifen cost?

A month's supply of tamoxifen costs about $80 to $100.

35. How much did the study cost?

The trial had been projected to cost $70 million, but the total
cost is estimated at $50 million, including $10 million for two
more years of follow-up. All except $3.5 million from the
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, was provided by
NCI.

36. Why is the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial so important?

This year, more than 178,000 women in the United States
alone will be diagnosed as having breast cancer, and about
43,500 will die of the disease. For many years, women at
increased risk for developing breast cancer had no proven
means to reduce their risk. Women had to rely on frequent
checkups and periodic mammograms to detect breast cancer
at an early stage. Doctors sometimes suggest that certain
women at very high risk have preventive (prophylactic)
mastectomies, which is surgery to remove breast tissue before
cancer develops. However, the operation does not guarantee
that breast cancer will be avoided, because it is almost
impossible to remove all the breast tissue and the impact of
prophylactic mastectomy on breast cancer risk is not known.

Because tamoxifen was successful in reducing the incidence of
breast cancer, women at increased risk for developing the
disease will have a choice other than more frequent exams or
major surgery. Tamoxifen does not replace the need for regular
mammography. In order to prove its value, tamoxifen had to be
tested in a large research study to determine whether the
benefits outweighed the risks.

37. What is the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel
Project?

The NSABP is a cooperative group with a 40-year-history of
designing and conducting clinical trials, the results of which
have changed the way breast cancer is treated, and now,
potentially prevented. Results of research studies conducted by
NSABP researchers have been the dominant force in altering
the standard surgical treatment of breast cancer from radical
mastectomy to lumpectomy plus radiation. This group was also
the first to demonstrate that adjuvant therapy could alter the
natural history of breast cancer, thus increasing survival rates.
When a breast cancer prevention study was initially conceived,
more than 30,000 women with breast cancer had participated
in treatment studies conducted by NSABP investigators. A
research study to prevent breast cancer was a logical next step
for this research group.

NSABP was recently incorporated under the aegis of the
NSABP Foundation, Inc., a Pennsylvania nonprofit
membership organization with nearly 300 members in the
United States, Canada, and Australia. More than 6,000
physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals in the
NSABP, located in member institutions and their satellites are
involved in the conduct of treatment and prevention trials. NCI
provides funding for the two headquarters components of
NSABP: the NSABP Operations Center at Allegheny
University of the Health Sciences, Allegheny Campus, and the
NSABP Biostatistical Center at the University of Pittsburgh,
both located in Pittsburgh, Pa. NCI also provides funding
directly or indirectly, to the medical center Members of the
NSABP Foundation, Inc., who are responsible for
implementation of NSABP studies.



To: Hippieslayer who wrote (19395)4/22/1998 11:49:00 AM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
Speaking of Idoxifene, SBH now says that there is no need to merge and Idoxifene is one of the reasons to stay seperate:
INTERVIEW - SmithKline<SB.L> does not need merger

LONDON, April 21 (Reuters) - SmithKline Beecham Plc <SB.L> chief executive Jan Leschly said on Tuesday his company had no need to merge, and promised strong organic growth.

In his first public comment since the collapse of merger talks with pharmaceutical rivals American Home Products Corp <AHP.N> and Glaxo Wellcome Plc <GLXO.L> earlier this year, Leschly told a telephone conference with reporters: "We don't need a merger. We are a very strong company. We have a bright future."

Leschly also said the company was still seeking ways to enhance shareholder value, but he added "we have no specific thoughts on that in any way."

"We never felt we needed a merger. The talks with Glaxo Wellcome <GLXO.L> would have made a strong company even stronger," Leschly said.

"What we are planning is a business with tremendous organic growth as an independent company. We think as an independent company we can be very successful."

Leschly said he expected to give further details on the breakdown of negotiations with Glaxo Wellcome to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on Wednesday afternoon.

He said a further sharp rise in research and development spending expected this year would be targeted principally at four leading development products -- Ariflo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, Idoxifene for osteoporosis and breast cancer, Avandia for diabetes and a new potent quinolone antibiotic.

"All four products could be what the market talks about as blockbusters," Leschly said.

He said both Ariflo and Avandia would take the company into new therapeutic areas, and noted the potential market for Avandia was much larger than that for insulin.

The quinolone antibiotic, designed to combat antibiotic resistance, would come on stream in time to pick up from the group's best-selling antibiotic Augmentin, which loses its patent in 2003.

Leschly compared Idoxifene to the Eli Lilly & Co drug Evista, which is also targeted at osteoporosis and breast cancer.

"We expect to file first in osteoporosis and then in breast cancer, and that will create a very big opportunity as well. These four products we need to invest in and want to invest in."

Leschly said the group's research and development update last week had been "well received by the financial community," despite a sharp fall in the group's share price, although there had been "some misunderstanding" in the press.

He said he was also confident the group would be able to maintain its operating margins despite the rise in expenditure on new products because of improvements in its gross margin, notably through tightening up its global supply chain.

"We are doing the right things for the business -- we are trying to make the proper investment for the business in the future and at the same time make sure we have an appropriate return in earnings per share."

Leschly, who has come under considerable media and institutional pressure since the talks with Glaxo collapsed, said he did not believe shareholders had any reason to be unhappy.

"I don't see any reason they should be unhappy, if you look

15:10 04-21-98



To: Hippieslayer who wrote (19395)4/22/1998 11:58:00 AM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
Speaking of Idoxifene, SBH cites its future success as one of the reasons that they don't have to merge:

INTERVIEW - SmithKline<SB.L> does not need merger

LONDON, April 21 (Reuters) - SmithKline Beecham Plc <SB.L> chief executive Jan Leschly said on Tuesday his company had no need to merge, and promised strong organic growth.

In his first public comment since the collapse of merger talks with pharmaceutical rivals American Home Products Corp <AHP.N> and Glaxo Wellcome Plc <GLXO.L> earlier this year, Leschly told a telephone conference with reporters: "We don't need a merger. We are a very strong company. We have a bright future."

Leschly also said the company was still seeking ways to enhance shareholder value, but he added "we have no specific thoughts on that in any way."

"We never felt we needed a merger. The talks with Glaxo Wellcome <GLXO.L> would have made a strong company even stronger," Leschly said.

"What we are planning is a business with tremendous organic growth as an independent company. We think as an independent company we can be very successful."

Leschly said he expected to give further details on the breakdown of negotiations with Glaxo Wellcome to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on Wednesday afternoon.

He said a further sharp rise in research and development spending expected this year would be targeted principally at four leading development products -- Ariflo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, Idoxifene for osteoporosis and breast cancer, Avandia for diabetes and a new potent quinolone antibiotic.

"All four products could be what the market talks about as blockbusters," Leschly said.

He said both Ariflo and Avandia would take the company into new therapeutic areas, and noted the potential market for Avandia was much larger than that for insulin.

The quinolone antibiotic, designed to combat antibiotic resistance, would come on stream in time to pick up from the group's best-selling antibiotic Augmentin, which loses its patent in 2003.

Leschly compared Idoxifene to the Eli Lilly & Co drug Evista, which is also targeted at osteoporosis and breast cancer.

"We expect to file first in osteoporosis and then in breast cancer, and that will create a very big opportunity as well. These four products we need to invest in and want to invest in."

Leschly said the group's research and development update last week had been "well received by the financial community," despite a sharp fall in the group's share price, although there had been "some misunderstanding" in the press.

He said he was also confident the group would be able to maintain its operating margins despite the rise in expenditure on new products because of improvements in its gross margin, notably through tightening up its global supply chain.

"We are doing the right things for the business -- we are trying to make the proper investment for the business in the future and at the same time make sure we have an appropriate return in earnings per share."

Leschly, who has come under considerable media and institutional pressure since the talks with Glaxo collapsed, said he did not believe shareholders had any reason to be unhappy.

"I don't see any reason they should be unhappy, if you look

15:10 04-21-98



To: Hippieslayer who wrote (19395)4/22/1998 2:17:00 PM
From: tonyt  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 32384
 
Were you speaking of idoxifene????



To: Hippieslayer who wrote (19395)4/23/1998 6:48:00 AM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
Heres' what today's FT has to say about the merger collapse between SBH and GLX:
GLAXO: Drugs company 'wanted Leschly out'
By Daniel Green

Sir Richard Sykes, chairman of Glaxo Wellcome, the
UK's largest drugs company, demanded the resignation
of Jan Leschly, chief executive of UK rival SmithKline
Beecham, as part of the price of a merger between the
two companies.

Mr Leschly revealed the story of how the deal collapsed
in February when he appeared before a UK parliamentary
committee on science and technology yesterday.

He said that because Glaxo had broken the deal, a
return to merger talks was extremely unlikely.

The resignation demand was one of several changes to
an "understanding" that turned what could only have
worked as a merger of equals into a takeover, Mr
Leschly said.

He said the two companies would have benefited from
merging, but only if one did not impose its culture on the
other.

"The two companies remain strong individually, and that
is better than having a failed marriage between them," he
said.

Separately, he said that this was the second time talks
between the two companies had failed: there had been
four months of negotiations in 1996 on merging the two
companies' research and development operations.

A single R&D organisation would have supplied new
medicines to separate manufacturing and marketing
companies. That deal failed because the two sides could
not find a mechanism for deciding which discoveries
would be sold by which company.

Mr Leschly told the committee that on January 24, the
day the Financial Times published news that SmithKline
was in merger talks with US rival American Home
Products, Sir Richard telephoned him.

"Richard said: 'Is it too late?' and I said 'no'," said Mr
Leschly.

There followed six days of "intense discussions" that
culminated in the announcement of a merger of equals
jointly led by the two men.

It came as a shock when Sir Richard called a private
meeting in New York for February 20 and said, according
to Mr Leschly, the deal as it stood would not work.

"There was no explanation for this," said Mr Leschly.
"What was presented was a takeover without a premium.

"By breaking the deal they destroyed our board's trust
and confidence in their board."



To: Hippieslayer who wrote (19395)4/23/1998 7:30:00 AM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
Here's what Dow Jones said yesterday:
Dow Jones Newswires -- April 22, 1998
SmithKline CEO: Glaxo Wanted A No-Premium Takeover

LONDON (Dow Jones)--The proposed merger between SmithKline
Beecham PLC (SBH) and Glaxo Wellcome PLC (GLX) collapsed because
Glaxo tried to alter preliminary deal terms to turn what was billed as a
merger of equals into a no-premium takeover, Jan Leschly, SmithKline chief
executive, said Wednesday.

Leschly also said that it's 'highly unlikely' that SmithKline would seek another
merger, but said he couldn't guarantee that the company wouldn't consider
another deal at some point in the future.

Speaking in front of a House of Commons science and technology select
committee, Leschly said that by seeking to amend the terms of their
agreement, 'Glaxo had damaged the trust and confidence' of SmithKline's
management.

Leschly said the companies spent three weeks in due diligence 'without any
major hiccups' before Glaxo chairman Richard Sykes called him 'and to my
astonishment said that what we had agreed wouldn't work and would never
work.'

Sykes then went on to say that 'significant major changes on what we
considered a deal would have to be made,' Leschly said.

The changes Sykes was seeking would have included 'major changes to
senior executive roles, including my role,' Leschly said.

Leschly said he believed that the companies had been 'very close' to a deal
before Glaxo altered the terms.

The SmithKline chief executive also admitted that even though it looked like
a merger with Glaxo was going to happen, SmithKline still had 'culture
problems' with Glaxo.

'It is very disappointing, but it is better that (the deal broke up) than if we had
a marriage that didn't work out,' Leschly said.

Glaxo's decision to back away from a 'merger of equals' would have made it
difficult for the combined company to deliver medium- to long-term growth,
he added.

'If it became the Glaxo way or the SmithKline Beecham way, it would have
been very difficult for us to keep our senior scientists and managers,' Leschly
said.

'Even in a merger of equals - even if there was total harmony - it would have
been a difficult task bringing these organizations together,' he added. 'We
would expect it would take two to three years to feel like we were one
strong company.'

Leschly and Sykes were initially called to give evidence to the select
committee on the implications for the U.K.'s science base if their companies
were to merge. But when the merger was called off, the committee decided
instead to quiz the two executives on the future of research and development
investment in the U.K.

In his evidence to the committee April 1, Sykes said the Glaxo, SmithKline
merger had failed because the two companies had 'different cultures and
different management styles.'

SmithKline announced its plans to merge with Glaxo in January, just two
weeks after calling off talks with American Home Products. (AHP) Initial
merger terms, including board composition, were agreed quickly, with Glaxo
to get 59.5% of the new company and SmithKline the remaining 40.5%, but
the deal was called off in late February.



To: Hippieslayer who wrote (19395)4/23/1998 8:01:00 AM
From: Henry Niman  Respond to of 32384
 
Here's what Reuter's had to say:
FOCUS-SmithKline<SB.L>says Glaxo "destroyed trust"

By Jonathan Birt

LONDON, April 22 (Reuters) - Anglo-U.S. drugs group SmithKline Beecham Plc ruled out on Wednesday any lingering prospects of reviving talks with Glaxo Wellcome Plc <GLXO.L> to form the world's biggest drugs company.

SmithKline chief executive Jan Leschly accused Glaxo of destroying SmithKline's "trust and confidence" by reneging on carefully worked out merger plans.

"Theoretically we could go back, but I can't see a possibility for a merger of the two companies," he told the science and technology committee of Britain's House of Commons.

Danish-born Leschly gave the most detailed explanation yet of what went wrong in 20 days of talks aimed a forming a 100 billion pound pharmaceutical powerhouse.

"Glaxo Wellcome broke the deal and Glaxo therefore destroyed our board's confidence in their intentions," he said. "Without that trust and confidence we wouldn't have generated value, we'd have destroyed value."

He said he insisted after Glaxo chairman Sir Richard Sykes telephoned him on January 24 to ask if it was too late to open talks on a merger that there had to be an understanding on how it would take place before detailed discussions could start.

For six days SmithKline chief operating officer Jean-Pierre Garnier and Glaxo chief executive Robert Ingram and finance director John Coombe worked with Leschly and Sykes to hammer out a basic deal.