Friday, July 10, 2009

And Now, Brian Orelli, at "The Motley Fool" Counters Herper's. . . .


Brian Orelli thinks the Arbiter 6-HALTS early termination news is overblown:

. . . .I'm no fan of Merck (NYSE: MRK), but the sell-off of its shares yesterday seems a little overblown considering the lack of information. . . .

See anything in there that suggests that Niaspan prevailed over Zetia? Me neither, but, judging by Merck's share decrease, it looks like that's what investors and some analysts are worried about. . . .

Ahem:



I think what we see here is not so much that it might not be a "loss" for Zetia, as it is highly-unlikely to be a "clear win" for Zetia.

Given the above chart (click it to enlarge), Zetia, and its sister-drug, Vytorin, really needed some sort of a "home run" -- just to have any shot of "staunching the bleeding" in U.S. market share, and sales, in the coming quarters. I think Forbes' Matt Herper is right -- there is very little chance that Zetia posted a clear win, here. Thus, investors should be expecting more of the same (despite CEO Hassan's contrary assurances), from Merck and Schering-Plough on July 21, 2009. Did I mention that I'll live blog it? I will.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't think that anyone in the scientific community expected in their wildest dreams to see a clear win for Zetia here. There are very few Niaspan skeptics out there, its issue is its tolerability profile. There isn't much for Niaspan to gain with this trial, it really doesn't compete with Zetia, at least as long as its flushing issues are still out there. I realize this becoming a minor media event, but Abbott really has nothing to gain in this trial. Niaspan shows efficacy over Zetia, and it won't suprise most docs. If they are at parity, then blame the method, or possibly look at Niaspan as less efficacious than previously expected. This is just a media event that is really a non-event.

Condor said...

I tend to agree with most of yours -- strictly from a scientific point of view -- given the fact that, at the time the trial was terminated, only 180 patients were enrolled in the study.

So, the law of small numbers is going to plague any outcome, here.

I still believe though, that this is all bad news for Zetia. As I said, Scheirng-Plough desperately needed some sort of "home run" for Zetia -- just to survive, longer term.

And we both agree that would have been extremely unlikely here -- given the prior niacin study outcomes.

So, say what you will about it being meaningless from a scientific point of view -- it must be evaluated against the factual background of the market, here -- and that market share in the US, is on a 15 percent down-bubble, and likely accelerating its dive-plane.

We'll know how much, for certain, in about nine days.

Do stop back.

Namaste