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: scaram(o)uche who wrote (4575)	6/28/1998 3:12:00 PM
From: Izzy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6136

That's what I've been saying all along, but I can't justify prescribing Crixivan (kidney stones really hurt and are difficult/expensive to treat) when considering the effectiveness and very low drug side-effect profile of Viracept, the PI of choice, IMO.

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (4575)	6/29/1998 7:01:00 AM
From: Henry Niman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6136

Rick, I don't think that anyone would say that PIs are not effective. However, the key questions focus on duration and resistance. I thought that the study that you linked began to show how serious the duration and resistance problems were. My quick read of the report indicated that 34% of naive patients who started the three drugs had detectable levels of virus after 2 year. Of course that was better than the 70% who started therapy without a PI, but 34% is a rather high number and the emerging viruses will be resistant to all three drugs. When PIs came out I had said that resistance would be a problem and the longer term results seem to be making the point rather clearly. Comments?