Len Zehr

Long only, biotech
Len Zehr
Long only, biotech
Contributor since: 2011
We often don't cover companies after we've written about them on BioTuesdays. In this case, we did post the following brief on the site on November 12th:
Zalicus pain trials with Z160 fail
Top-line results from two Phase 2 clinical studies of Zalicus’ (NASDAQ:ZLCS) Z160 drug candidate (see May 21 BT Feature) did not meet their primary endpoints in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy and post-herpetic neuralgia.
Shares of Zalicus fell $3.39 on Monday to close at $1.40 and are quoted 17 cents lower at mid-day Tuesday.
Based on the results, Zalicus is discontinuing the Z160 program and plans to focus efforts on Z944, its novel oral T-type calcium channel modulator in development for the treatment of pain.
“A review of the data demonstrate that both studies were conducted in a rigorous fashion and resulted in adequate exposure of Z160, yet failed to demonstrate a difference in effect from placebo on any endpoint,” president and CEO Dr. Mark Corrigan said in a statement.
Thanks for your kind words of support!
Best,
Len
You may want to check out this feature we did a while back on another Canadian company called Pivotal Therapeutics.
http://bit.ly/TmwPaq
Hi, just a FYI. Canaccord Genuity just initiated coverage of NVDQ with a "buy" rating and a $15 price target.
Yes, thanks. I know the symbol is NVDQ on NASDAQ and NDQ on the TSX. Somehow SA missed that. You can also see the story (with correct symbols) at http://bit.ly/R6a8nr.
Hi jdelta,
FYI - we have covered Trimel quite a bit in past too. Please see:
http://bit.ly/LOLoeu
I worked for many years as a financial journalist, editor and manager with the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones News Service, and the Globe and Mail’s Report on Business. After retiring, I joined Kilmer Lucas as a Managing Director. Some time after that, I helped launch and became editor of BioTuesdays.com.
Our mission at BioTuesdays is to give great, but not necessarily big or well known, healthcare companies and their stories the exposure that they deserve.
Had zzlangerhans bothered to ask me, he/she would have quickly learned that Marshall Edwards is not now (nor has it ever been) a client of mine or of Kilmer Lucas'. So, there is no "PR relationship" as he/she alleges.
I am not going to ask Seeking Alpha to delete your reply even though it, in fact, contains false allegations and innuendo.
"I assume that you also can't point to any actual data to show that the 6 mg form is a benefit to the 10 mg form, either in terms of efficacy or safety?"
Similarly, I assume that you can't point to any actual data to show that the 10 mg form is equivalent to or better than the 6 mg form in terms of efficacy, safety or risk of abuse or physical dependence.
Word.
"at the BPAX analyst day yesterday, both key opinion leaders (KOLs) recited the 4mm off-label number and both mentioned they Rx T off-label to women."
Thank you! Bio Burt obviously just wants to get the last word.
Word.
"and again, no indication of how IMS data was used to establish market size..."
Quantitation of Intercontinental Marketing Services (IMS) prescription data to identify testosterone prescriptions written for women and a summary of response to queries to opinion leaders and practicing physicians.
Word.
Aim.  To identify the current prescribing pattern of off-label testosterone use in treating HSDD.
Main Outcome Measures.  Quantitation of Intercontinental Marketing Services (IMS) prescription data to identify testosterone prescriptions written for women and a summary of response to queries to opinion leaders and practicing physicians.
Methods.  Interviews and an opinion poll of gynecologists and family medicine physicians on current medical treatment of HSDD.
keep bashing!
Sure you aren't.
"Don;t worry, i was not expecting you to explain how you would get data on off label use of teste for fsd..."
onlinelibrary.wiley.co...
So endeth the lesson.
You present a very circular argument. Companies do not conduct primary research for the sake of it. They do it to understand their markets and help set their strategies. If they base those strategies on false findings, then they do that to their own detrement.
As I am not paid by the company, nor do I own any of its stock, I clearly have no incentive to pump. You, on the other hand, seem determined to bash it. Why?
p.s. Until you answer that question honestly, I will not engage in any further debate with you.
I interviewed Mr. Simes for some time and did not rely on company press releases. I simply reported what he said BioSante's primary research revealed. It is a figure that is also repeated in BioSante's marketing materials. I have no reason to believe that either Mr. Simes or the company are not telling the truth. Are you suggesting otherwise?
I think you will see from my profile that I have some experience doing this. While I don't rely on a "CEO to tell [me] how good his company is," I do give him/her the benefit of the doubt when they relay basic information.
By the way, for "proof" of the existence of the primary research in question, you may want to look at onlinelibrary.wiley.co... . While the information is dated (prescriptions in 2006 and 2007 vs 2009), I think it closes this debate on my end.
No - I don't work for BioSante. Are you short their stock?
According to BioSante's 10K filed in March, "Under the agreement, Antares granted us an exclusive license to certain patents and patent applications covering these gel products, including rights to sublicense, in order to develop and market the products in certain territories, including the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Israel, Mexico, China (including Hong Kong) and Indonesia". So, you are right that they retain Libigel rights for the countries not listed (as apposed to the "rest of the world"). Apologies for neglecting to mention that.
That information was provided to me by Stephen Simes during my interview with him. It is not the first time he has said this in an interview (see: www.nytimes.com/2010/0...).
With respect to your question about "primary research", I believe that sentence has to be put into the context of the two sentences that immediately follow it. Specifically, those two following sentences refer to BioSante's "market research" and its "doctor surveys".
According to Wikipedia, "primary research (also called field research) involves the collection of data that does not already exist, which is research to collect original data. Primary Research is often undertaken after the researcher has gained some insight into the issue by collecting secondary data. This can be through numerous forms, including questionnaires, direct observation and telephone interviews amongst others. This information may be collected in things like questionnaires and interviews".
So, I believe BioSante's "market research" and/or "doctor surveys" are, indeed, "primary research".