Monday, September 10, 2012

Another cure from cancer. Again! (Post No 12) Dacomitinib


Very nice news – a drug against lung cancer very soon will be available! Probably…  
The SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group (SFJ), announced today that it has entered into a collaborative development agreement with Pfizer Inc. to conduct a Phase 3 clinical trial of Pfizer's investigational pan-HER (pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor) inhibitor, dacomitinib (PF-00299804).  The trial, which will be conducted across multiple sites in Asia and Europe, will evaluate dacomitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).
And we are talking about targeted approach:  Dacomitinib (PF-00299804) is a second-generation irreversible pan-erbB receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor. It is believed to irreversibly inhibit erbB tyrosine kinase activity through binding at the ATP site and covalent modification of nucleophilic cysteine residues in the catalytic domains of erbB family members.
Therefore, thistargeted approach is not very much targeted – Dacomitinib is not specific to just one particular protein but to the whole family of erbB tyrosine kinases. Do not ask me why. And do not ask me who, when and how will be develop a medicine to the rest of lung cancer patients without activating mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). We will follow the development of the situation with Dacomitinib with much interest!

Masterpiece of the day. Evolution vs tolerance

Sunday, September 9, 2012

No dilemma for Big Pharma.


I've seen a fresh analysis regarding R&D spending 2012vs2011 in Big Pharma. After the presentation of cold numbers there is a conclusion:

Some of the big pharma companies face a dilemma requiring tough decisions. They can cut R&D spending to keep the bottom line looking good in the wake of declining revenue. However, cutting R&D too much could jeopardize prospects for launching new moneymaking products.

Another alternative is to continue funding R&D even as revenue drops off. This approach, though, can lead to unhappy investors if earnings suffer too much before the investments pay off.
Pfizer appears to have taken the former approach. Astrazeneca could be a poster child for the latter road, going full steam ahead with R&D spending despite decreasing revenue.

Which is the right path? That remains to be seen.

However, how a company spends its money on R&D is more important than how much it spends. Investors should research the fundamentals and product pipelines of each company before buying the stock. That's the kind of R&D that pays off over the long run.

Well, I would disagree with the author – it doesn't matter HOW or HOW MUCH Big Pharma spends the money for R&D – the hidden task is not to develop anything promising but the opposite – protect market from evolving of novel medicine products. Everything else is plain simply PR activity. Therefore Big Pharma has just to spend – in whatever products whatever amount of capital. The outcome is predestined and predictable.

Masterpiece of the day. Ocean of dreams

Quote of the day. Mandella