Hello Saul,
There has been a lot of buzz about GILD lately in the supernova universe and I know your big on Celg. Just curious why do you like Celgene better than Gilead? Gild has a lower Pe and has a known cure for Hep C. Really interested in your thoughts on this. Thinking about buying one or both this week and selling my Google stock to do it.
Wow no one is interested in talking Celg vs Gild. Just went all in on Gild today. That Hep C drug is selling way better than expected putting Gild in a real good cash position to continue to buy small bio techs and bringing their great drug pipelines into the world.
1 Like
Developing drugs yourself is a more hit and miss proposition than buying a small biotech. Think of the owners (or top executives) of a small company with a limited pipeline. They can develop it themselves, if it fails all they will have is devalued stock options, very risky. If it succeeds they might make $40 million each. So it’s a big risk. If they sell out they get a guaranteed $20 million. The life style risk difference between near zero and $40 million is a lot more than that between $20 million and $40 million. Frankly I can’t imagine what I would do with $40 million, but it probably wouldn’t be that much more than what I could do with $20 million.
The $20 and $40 million are arbitrary just to make a point.
But the risk is real. Very few drugs are a sure thing, there is a big gap between mice and humans. Remember all those Alzheimer drugs that worked so well on mice?
I’ll bet the insiders and scientists thought they would work on people too.
nothing worse than a mouse with dementia
2 Likes
That Hep C drug is selling way better than expected putting Gild in a real good cash position
For how long, new (better?) competition is coming in just a few months.
If, and it may be a big if, markets act like they are supposed to prices should come down quickly.
That being said, I doubt they will.
B
1 Like
Hi Gclever
Wow no one is interested in talking Celg vs Gild. Just went all in on Gild today. That Hep C drug is selling way better than expected putting Gild in a real good cash position to continue to buy small bio techs and bringing their great drug pipelines into the world.
I’m long GILD, (4th largest position).
They also have an AIDS drug that is selling very well and in a few months will come out with a Hep C one pill solution which they think will carry sales forward more quickly.
Long pipeline and a good to hold stock. I also own some CELG but have focused on GILD simply due to a lack of time to explore CELG further.
Mykie
and in a few months will come out with a Hep C one pill solution
Out of curiosity could you direct me to something specific on this one pill solution, although I’ve known new treatments were on the horizon I know very little about the details.
For what it’s worth I am currently undergoing treatment using the non FDC approved combo of Solvaldi and Olysio which was purely an avoid side affects decision with costs approaching 150k (non-discounted). That being said I’m likely to be the go to guy*, as dangerous as that may seem, for someone else that will be facing a decision of what to do regarding treatment in the not too distant future, so I’d like to at least try to familiarize myself with what is on the horizon.
TIA,
B
*From a, this is intimidating, you have been through this, I trust you, what should I do perspective.
something specific on this one pill solution
Results for Sovaldi/ledipasvir
The intent-to-treat SVR12 rates observed to date in the ION studies are summarized in the table below. Results of the 24-week arms from ION-1 will be available in the first quarter of 2014 and will be presented at a future scientific meeting.
Study Population Treatment Duration SVR12 Rates
ION-1 GT 1 treatment-naïve
(including 15.7 percent?
with cirrhosis) SOF/LDV 12 weeks 97.7% (209/214)
SOF/LDV + RBV 12 weeks 97.2% (211/217)
SOF/LDV 24 weeks NA (n=217)
SOF/LDV + RBV 24 weeks NA (n=217)
ION-2 GT 1 treatment-experienced
(including 20.0 percent?
with cirrhosis) SOF/LDV 12 weeks 93.6% (102/109)
SOF/LDV+RBV 12 weeks 96.4% (107/111)
SOF/LDV 24 weeks 99.1% (108/109)
SOF/LDV+RBV24 weeks 99.1% (110/111)
ION-3 GT 1 treatment-naïve SOF/LDV 8 weeks 94.0% (202/215)
SOF/LDV + RBV 8 weeks 93.1% (201/216)
SOF/LDV 12 weeks 95.4% (206/216)
Of the 1,518 patients randomized to the 12-week arms of ION-1 and to all arms of ION-2 and ION-3, 1,456 patients (95.9 percent) achieved the primary efficacy endpoint of SVR12. Of the 62 patients (4.1 percent) who failed to achieve SVR12, 36 patients (2.4 percent) experienced virologic failure: 35 due to relapse and only one patient due to on-treatment breakthrough (with documented non-compliance). Twenty-six patients (1.7 percent) were lost to follow-up or withdrew consent.
Fewer adverse events were observed in the RBV-free, fixed-dose combination arms compared to the RBV-containing arms in all ION studies. Adverse events observed in those taking the SOF/LDV tablet were generally mild and included fatigue and headache. In the RBV-containing arms of the ION studies, the most common adverse events were fatigue, headache, nausea and insomnia. Anemia, which is a common side effect associated with RBV, was reported in 0.5 percent of patients in the SOF/LDV arms versus 9.2 percent of patients in the RBV-containing arms. Less than 1 percent of patients in the studies discontinued treatment due to treatment-emergent adverse events.
3 Likes
Thanks, so if I’m interpreting the results correctly the so called cure rate for GT1 is around the figure I was given (93-100%) and the really big improvement would be the reduction of RBV/Interferon related side effects?
What they really need to do is get the darn cost down. Not to go political, but there is something fundamentally wrong when even people with insurance, that for legitimate medical reasons might benefit from the treatment I am receiving get turned down, and yet someone like myself has access to it even though it isn’t FDA approved to avoid some side effects that may or may not even happen.
I know life isn’t fair and all, but when it comes to life and death issues it seams to me it could be a lot fairer than it is.
B
1 Like
rtf53 and others,
I posted this last week on one of the subscription boards, but failed to follow-up here as interest in GILD seemed to drop off sometime back.
I encourage you to view the webcast for a true peek over the horizon.
First to market and high efficacy with low side-effects have been strong factors in the success so far.
What’s next:
-
Approval of Sofosbuvir-Ledipasvir for treatment without ribavirin and an 8-week duration (instead of 12-week); anticipated 4Q, 2014.
-
Sofosbuvir/Ledipasvir + GS-0669 or GS-9451 with possible duration of 6 weeks or less; 2015/2016.
Here is a webcast of a presentation given by Dr. Anita Kohli (NIH) in March:
Combination Oral, Hepatitis C Antiviral Therapy for 6 or 12 Weeks: Final Results of the SYNERGY Trial
http://www.croiwebcasts.org/console/player/22048?mediaType=s……
The moat widens when 1) efficacy remains high and side-effects low (no interferon, no ribavirin), 2) all products used in treatment are proprietary and under Gilead’s control (again, no interferon, no ribavirin), 3) treatment duration is decreased.
These factors won’t eliminate competition, but Gilead should snatch up the most-accesible, most-in-need patients, leaving the late-comers (e.g. Merck)to beat the bushes.
3 Likes
Thank you, it all looks very good from a patient POV, but I still wonder what it will mean from an investing standpoint.
If you think they got a lot of negative PR over Sovaldi costing $1000 a pop, I can only imagine what it will be like when the number is $2000 plus.
I know the headline number shouldn’t be the one that matters, but lots of things that shouldn’t matter end up mattering.
If you think they got a lot of negative PR over Sovaldi costing $1000 a pop, I can only imagine what it will be like when the number is $2000 plus.
I seriously doubt that they will go up a full increment. Downward pressure on pricing should begin in earnest by the middle of next year: the worldwide pricing structure will be clear (with the U.S., and possibly Japan, bearing highest pricing) and strong competition in the market and/or on the horizon. These proprietary combinations create a bulwark against the pressure to lower pricing and ensure that they capture the entire revenue stream associated with a treatment regimen. Also, they are aiming to maintain best-in-class performance.
Unfortunately, it’s all been very costly, but there is a very positive back-story here: 25 years from discovery to effective treatment with incremental risk management and interventions in between, combining both public and private interests, has placed us on the doorstep of an important public health triumph.
These combination therapies involving small-molecule antivirals also point the way for possible new approaches in treating other intractable viral infections.
Some great info here. It appears that Gild despite its top and bottom line growth the stock hasn’t really scream to the upside because of the politics of the cost of the drug.
There’s bound to be some transparency on pricing based on the competition and how their effectiveness compares to Gild’s solution. The uncertainty in my opinion has made Gild a compelling investment and is now my third biggest position in my stock portfolio.
Gclever,
I just found your thread.
I’m goo goo gaa gaa over GIld!!!
Read Bret Jensen take on Seeking Alpha. Easily 50% upside from here just to get to fair value.
CELG boring!
Best of luck to all!
Cheers