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 : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aknahow who wrote (8432)	1/22/1999 5:30:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 17367

To: aknahow who wrote (8432)	1/22/1999 5:30:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

George, The subset I was referring to was the upper GI group as a whole, not the two dosage groups. In the original trial, there was no overall significance, but there was strong significance for a particular subset: the upper GI surgery group. Based on this showing of significance, they did another trial for just this subset. This is the trial that has now failed. Peter

To: aknahow who wrote (8432)	1/22/1999 5:40:00 PM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

ABTI main problem was the very poor clinical science behind. Another problem was the concept itself, it was like a vaccine (the company called it an immunomodulator). Be worry of molecules that do all kinds of jobs (ABTI's glucan was good for everything, like antioxidants). Check The ABTI thread (is no too long) and I predicted the first debacle and the second one. Subset data is poor when one does not plan for it in the phase III trial, is a secondary finding (after massage of data to please someone) and especially when the company wants to please markets. Amylin is having some problems with this, but they have being doing very good research, their product is in a very complex disease, and they just keep getting poor results, I would not bet on it. Xoma did a phase II in trauma and found a subset to work at (to decrease pneumonia and ARDS )in the phase III this is the appropriate way (but it does not assure good results). but is still non focus patients are trauma first, and infections could be of any kind. Trauma of the head, chest, abdomen ? Hemorrhage from one leg, from anywhere? dying from lack of blood vs from infections, Infections complication like pneumonia vs probably infectious ARDS or none infectious type post trauma ARDS? Gram positive vs Gram negative? Xoma,s exploratory phase II in abdominal infections complications is a much better model, it is more focus to the gram-negative infections, the subjects are sicker and older, and the problem is mainly infections This model I find more appropriate than the trauma one.