New FDA Commisioner Silent Since Taking Helm
by Mark S. Senak
EyeOnFDA.com
As anyone can see who visits the actual Eye on FDA site, there is a great deal of legislation that is being considered by Congress for passage. Some of it involves fundamental changes to the way that the FDA does, or will do business. It is not insignificant legislation, some of which I haven’t even had a chance to toss onto the roll (I promise to get to this).
But, in short, the advent of the 110th Congress has undeniably brought with it a range of new proposals, from proposing a regulatory pathway to consider biotechnology drugs coming off patent to the more rigorous regulation of tobacco.
If, however, you turn to the FDA’s Web site that tracks the agency’s congressional testimony to look at what the newly confirmed FDA Commissioner’s point of view on this would be, you would be hard pressed to find it. In fact, the last testimony provided by the FDA was November 15, 2006. This is in spite of the fact that there has not only been a wealth of legislative proposals, there has been a somewhat aggressive hearing schedule being run by the newly-in-charge Democratic majority.
This leads one to three possible conclusions. First, the Web master at FDA is asleep on the job. Or, second, that Dr. von Eschenbach prefers to keep his opinion to himself. Or, thirdly, that the Democratic chairs do not feel that they need to ask the FDA Commissioner his point of view, presumably because they already know it. I hope no one in Washington would be that jaded.
As recently cited by several former FDA Commissioners, one thing desperately needed by the FDA today is good leadership. Under this Administration, it has gone without that for more time than not. Now that there is finally a commissioner in place, it is time to let him speak his piece about a vision, and there is no more suitable place for him - or for us who want to hear him- than offering testimony on these many bills at these many hearings.
Source: EyeOnFDA.com
RELATED READING:
- New FDA Commissioner Says Little During NY Times Interview
- FDA & Pharmaceutical Legislative Proposals
____________________
Pfizer Successfully Defends its Norvasc Patent Again, This Time Against Mylan
For the third time, Pfizer’s (PFE) patent on Norvasc has withstood a validity challenge from a generic rival. Following a week-long trial held last year, Judge Terrence F. McVerry of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled yesterday that Pfizer’s U.S. Patent No. 4,879,303 patent is valid, enforceable, and infringed by Mylan.
As we reported last fall, Pfizer previously defeated challenges of the same patent brought by two other generic drug makers, Apotex and Synthon.
Norvasc, indicated for the treatment of hypertension, is a blockbuster drug for Pfizer, with annual sales of $2.5 billion in the United States. The ‘303 patent covers the active ingredient in Norvasc, amlodipine besylate. Though the patent will expire next month, the FDA granted six months of pediatric exclusivity for Norvasc, extending Pfizer’s protection until September 25, 2007.
In his opinion, Judge McVerry rejected both of Mylan’s defenses to infringment: invalidity due to obviousness and unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. With respect to obviousness, Judge McVerry concluded that the asserted prior art expressed a preference for the maleate salt of amlodipine and failed to teach a reason for one skilled in the art to even try to improve upon the maleate salt. Thus, there was no motivation or suggestion to create the besylate salt of amlodipine. With respect to inequitable conduct, Judge McVerry concluded that Mylan failed to prove both elements of the defense–materiality and intent to deceive–and “even if Mylan had proven the required elements, the degree of culpability of Pfizer’s representatives would be ever so slight and thus not sufficient to convince this Court that the proper remedy would be to invalidate the ‘303 patent.”
As the first ANDA filer for generic Norvasc, Mylan holds the 180-day exclusivity rights, which could be extremely lucrative. Now, however, Mylan will have to win on appeal before it can launch its product. Moreover, it seems Mylan must win the appeal before Pfizer’s pediatric exclusivity expires on September 25, 2007. Otherwise, the FDA will likely grant final approval to other generic companies, including Apotex and Synthon, and Mylan will lose its exclusivity rights. Mylan likely had this in mind when it immediately appealed yesterday’s decision to the Federal Circuit.
Finally, yesterday’s court decision avoids an interesting problem: if a decision on patent validity were not made before expiration of the ‘303 patent (March 25, 2007), would Pfizer have had a legal right to the pediatric exclusivity period? In a letter brief to the court, Pfizer acknowledged that the answer was unclear. The district court likely sought to avoid this question entirely by issuing its decision before the ‘303 patent expires.
Source: OrangeBookBlog.com
RELATED READING:
- 27-Feb-07 Mylan press release
- 27-Feb-07 Pfizer press release
- 21-Feb-07 WSJ article on Mylan (subscription required)
____________________
Astellas and Boehringer Ingelheim Defeat Ranbaxy in Flomax Case
Astellas and Boehringer Ingelheim Defeat Ranbaxy in Flomax Case
A federal district court last week upheld Astellas Pharma’s patent on Flomax (tamsulosin HCl), preventing Ranbaxy from marketing a generic version of the drug until the patent expires in 2009. Flomax is a treatment for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), with annual sales of approximately $600 million in the United States. Boehringer Ingelheim is Astellas Pharma’s U.S. marketing partner.
Astellas and Boehringer filed the lawsuit in 2005 after Ranbaxy applied to the FDA to market generic Flomax and asserted that Astellas Pharma’s U.S. Patent No. 4,703,063 is invalid. The ‘063 patent covers a class of chemical compounds that includes the active ingredient in Flomax, tamsulosin, as well as related pharmaceutical compositions.
Early in the litigation, Ranbaxy admitted that its generic Flomax infringes the ‘063 patent and dropped several defenses. Ranbaxy’s only remaining defense to patent infringement was that the ‘063 patent is invalid due to obviousness-type double patenting. The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting prohibits a party from obtaining an extension of its exclusive rights in a later patent that is not sufficiently distinct from a commonly owned earlier patent. Specifically, Ranbaxy claimed that the ‘063 patent is invalid because Astellas had previously obtained U.S. Patent No. 4,373,106, which covers processes for making the class of chemical compounds covered by the later ‘063 patent.
Judge Mary L. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued the opinion. Judge Cooper cited several precedents in support of the principle that later compound claims can be patentably distinct from earlier process claims. Furthermore, according to Judge Cooper, Ranbaxy did not “point to, and the Court could not find, one double-patenting case where a later product claim was anticipated by the earlier process claim for making that product.” Ranbaxy’s expert witness admitted “that the ‘106 patent only claims the processes for making the compounds and the ‘063 patent only claims the compounds themselves,” leaving no factual disputes to decide. Accordingly, Judge Cooper granted summary judgment of patent validity to Astellas and Boehringer.
Ranbaxy has appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Source: OrangeBookBlog.com
RELATED READING:
- 23-Feb-07 Astellas press release
Wednesday’s Top Biotech & Medical Stocks
Biotechnology
PIPEX PHARMACEUTICAL [PPXP.OB] +12.90%
BOSTON LIFE SCIENCES [BLSI] +10.63%
INSMED INC [INSM] +7.58%
CURAGEN CORP [CRGN] +7.25%
IDM PHARMA INC [IDMI] +6.37%
Diagnostic Substances
GENELABS TECH INC [GNLB] +18.18%
ICAGEN, INC. [ICGN] +14.15%
EPICEPT CORPORATION [EPCT] +11.94%
NYMOX PHARM CORP [NYMX] +8.00%
PRESSURE BIOSCIENC [PBIO] +6.40%
Drug Delivery
BIOPROGRESS PLC [BPRG] +8.99%
HOSPIRA INC [HSP] +6.71%
PETMED EXPRESS INC [PETS] +4.12%
BIOVAIL CORP [BVF] +2.88%
SKYEPHARMA PLC [SKYE] +2.70%
Drug Manufacturers
PLANET TECHS INC [PLNT.OB] +75.00%
ADVANCIS PHARMA CP [AVNC] +8.66%
INYX INC [IYXI.OB] +7.76%
ALTAIR NANOTECH INC [ALTI] +6.21%
ACCESS PHARMACEUTICL [ACCP.OB] +5.97%
Medical Appliances & Equipment
THERAGENICS CORP [TGX] +16.18%
CELSION CORP [CLN] +12.72%
ALLIED HEALTHCARE [AHPI] +10.95%
SYNERGETICS USA INC [SURG] +10.93%
SOMANETICS CORP [SMTS] +8.93%
Medical Instruments & Supplies
MEMRY CORPORATION [MRY] +12.82%
OPHTHALMIC IMAGING SYS INC [OISI.OB] +7.66%
ANGEION CORP [ANGN] +7.52%
MICROMED CARDIOVASCU [MMCV.OB] +7.32%
QUANTRX BIOMEDICAL [QTXB.OB] +7.14%
Medical Laboratories & Research
MEDTOX SCIENTFIC INC [MTOX] +7.14%
BIO-REFERENCE LAB [BRLI] +4.52%
BIO-IMAGING TECH [BITI] +4.22%
PSYCHEMEDICS NEW [PMD] +2.20%
ARRAY BIOPHARMA IN [ARRY] +1.12%
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Tuesday’s Top Biotech and Medical Stocks
- Monday’s Top Biotech and Medical Stocks
____________________
Florida: the Next Biotech Hub?
by H.S. Ayoub
BioHealth Investor.com
On the front page of the Tuesday edition of Investors Business Daily, Reinhardt Krause wrote a great article on the expansion of the biotechnology boom around the U.S.
California and Boston, where biotech giants such as Genentech (DNA), Amgen (AMGN), and Biogen Idec (BIIB) were born, continue to be the leaders in biotechnology. But more and more states are initiating plans for large biotech research establishments. Already, Maryland and San Diego have established biotechnology driven economies, and Washington, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, among others, are attempting to establish their own life science research hot spots. In fact, the biotech industry in Colorado has enjoyed a 38% increase in venture capital funding in 2006. Adam Rubenstein of Colorado Life Science Deal Flow is very busy trying to keep up with the venture capital flowing through his state.
Enter Florida, the southeastern state that has, and continues to, enjoy a robust economy driven by the hot Real Estate market of the last decade, and the increase in immigration, both national and international.
Florida is welcoming more than 1000 new residents daily. Of the new residents, about 44% are less than 35 years old. This influx of people, especially at that young professional age, tends to signal that a job boom is occurring. In a recent survey, 33% of new comers state that the main reason for moving to Florida was to find work, while only 17% said the climate was the main motivator.
But statistics show that these young professionals are transients, making money and having fun in the sunshine state, then leaving, while the older population is in Florida to stay. This has generated large communities of retirees whom are aware of their health needs, and financially capable of doing something about it.
Today in Florida, 1 out of every 6 people are 65 years of age or older. Nationally, only one in 8 are 65 or older. The state’s older population is expected to double by 2030, as the number of 85 year olds is expected to jump to almost one million.
So it is not surprising to see Healthcare as one of the top priorities to Floridians. Medical clinics and hospitals are top tier in South Florida. In fact, Dick Cheney had his aneurysm treated in a South Florida medical clinic back in 2005. But demand for healthcare in Florida continues; more hospital beds, better quality drugs, and new innovative treatments are needed. The state of Florida is willing to spend money to answer to those demands.
It all began in 2003 when the Scripps Research Institute of La Jolla, California was promised by Palm Beach County a significant amount of financing to establish a biotechnology research hub in the state. Scripps accepted the proposed $500 million in financing, and initiated plans for a mega biotech site on the Western fringes of Palm Beach County.
Problems arose when environmental groups worried that large scale construction would cause significant damage to the nearby everglades. A judge agreed to stop construction plans until the environmentalists could study the potential effects of the Scripps research complex, which could take at least two years.
Scripps decided to move the planned research center to Jupiter, just north of West Palm Beach. The center would be constructed on one of Florida Atlantic University’s campuses. So far, Scripps has cost the state $650 million in financing.
This much honey tends to attract more bees. Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular Studies lobbied for financing from Palm Beach County for establishing a large research center in Boca Raton. Palm Beach County denied the request, citing the institute’s relatively small level of federal funding dollars. Torrey Pines finally received $100 million from St. Lucie County, about an hour drive north of Palm Beach. Ground breaking for the new site is expected by March.
Burnham Institute for Medical Research also wants a strong presence in Florida, and has so far received over $300 million in state and local incentives to establish a life science research site near Orlando. Not to miss out on the handouts, SRI International of Silicon Valley opened its new marine technology research complex in St. Petersburg. A permanent facility is expected by mid-2008. Almost $50 million has been invested in SRI so far.
Not to be outdone by its cousins to the north, the University of Miami announced that it will initiate a large scale life science research network that will rival most of the big cities in the nation. The two phase plan called for about $1.5 billion to be spent. The first phase had already begun. In 2006, a 336, 000 square foot clinical research institute had began the roll out of facilities in around downtown Miami. Another 182,000 sq ft biomedical research institute will open in 2007, while the university’s first hospital is expected by 2010.
The second phase of the university’s plan calls for an even larger complex, about 1.4 million square feet of research space. The second phase is expected to create 5000 new jobs, and have a combined impact on the city’s annual income of about $263 million.
These projects will surely have a tremendous impact on the life science business in the state. Appropriately, BioCatalyst International, a firm founded by a co-founder of Genzyme (GENZ), moved its office headquarters from Virginia to West Palm Beach. The firm provides financing capital and business management for biotech firms. Surely, BioCatalyst is looking forward to capitalize on the expected roll out of development stage biotech companies in the coming decades here in Florida.
Utek Corporation (UTK) of Tampa has been very busy in the last couple of years, and is expected to get even busier. The company specializes in technology transfer management for Florida companies and universities. It has been seeing increasing interest in Florida-born intellectual property from both national and international entities.
Poniard Pharmaceuticals (PARD), under its previous name NeoRX, entered into a collaborative agreement with Scripps at Jupiter. The company will provide the institute with about $2.5 million over 26 months to conduct research. Poniard will have world wide exclusive rights to any treatment developed.
It is not only out of state firms that are increasingly making Florida their new business focus. Biotech companies are sprouting out of Florida universities ahead of the expected surge in venture capital.
Oragenics (ONI) of Alachua is targeting oral disease. The company’s exciting research is centered around replacement therapy, which utilizes a single topical treatment for life long protection against tooth decay. The tiny company, with a market cap of only around $20 million, was a University of Florida start-up.
Axogen of Gainesville, a company focusing on repairing peripheral nerve damage arising from injuries, raised almost $8 million back in February of 2006. The company is expected to launch its first product this year.
Venture capital spending on U.S. biotech companies continues to rise. According to research firm VentureOne, biotech companies received a total of $3.1 billion in venture funding across the U.S., up from $2.5 billion the year before. For Florida to see a bigger chunk of that cash flow it will have to do a better job at spending its own money. Florida has so far lagged behind. As of 2004, 51.6% of research and development spending in Florida was for life science research, while nationally, that percentage is higher, standing at almost 60%.
There still is room for the biotech industry to grow in Florida, and there are plenty of research institutes, life science companies, intellectual property law firms, and venture capital groups waiting for a piece of the pie.
The biotech boom will happen in Florida, but questions still remain; when will it occur, and how much will it cost?
The next decade should give us the answers.
____________________
Generic Companies Hoping MedImmune Solves Bottleneck Problem
We reported last month on a new declaratory judgment action that Apotex filed against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in the Eastern District of Virginia. In its complaint, Apotex alleged that Glaxo’s listing of a patent on Zantac Syrup in the Orange Book gave rise to a justiciable controversy sufficient to support declaratory judgment jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit has rejected similar claims before, most notably in Teva v. Pfizer. Apotex may have filed its new complaint hoping that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in MedImmune v. Genentech would force a different outcome this time around.
It appears the Federal Circuit will decide whether listing a patent in the Orange Book creates declaratory judgment jurisdiction in a case currently pending before the court, long before the Apotex action reaches it. The case is Teva v. Novartis, No. 06-1181, concerning Teva’s attempt to market a generic version of Novartis’s herpes treatment Famvir (famciclovir). Teva, the appellant, presented the following issue for review:
Whether there is an “actual controversy” sufficient to support subject matter jurisdiction over Teva’s claim for a declaration that certain patents were invalid, unenforceable or not infringed where: (i) appellee listed the patents in the Orange Book with respect to its Famvir product, thus representing that an infringement action under those patents “could reasonably be asserted” against any generic formulation of that drug; (ii) Teva committed a statutory act of infringing those patents under 35 USC 271(e)(2) by submitting an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to market a generic formulation of Famvir before the expiration of the patents; (iii) Novartis sued Teva to prevent Teva from launching its generic formulation of Famvir alleging that Teva’s ANDA infringed another patent listed in the Orange Book with respect to Famvir; (iv) appellee has consistently and aggressively enforced its pharmaceutical patents against Teva and other generic drug companies; and (v) appellee has refused to give any assurance that it would not sue Teva for infringement of the patents.
The case was fully briefed last Spring and oral arguments were heard in October. Then, on January 9th of this year, the Supreme Court released its decision in MedImmune and on the same day counsel for Teva sent notice of the decision to the Federal Circuit. In a citation of supplemental authority, Teva argued that that Supreme Court had essentially overruled Teva v. Pfizer:
[T]he Supreme Court established [in MedImmune] that Article III does not require a declaratory judgment plaintiff to prove that it faces a reasonable apprehension of imminent suit by the patentee, as this Court had required. Slip op. at 13 n.11 (reasonable apprehension of suit test conflicts with Supreme Court precedent). . . . Since the district court in this case relied on the reasonable apprehension requirement to dismiss appellant’s claim for declaratory relief, MedImmune requires the vacation of the dismissal.
Generic drug companies are hoping that MedImmune will finally solve a “bottleneck problem,” where second and later ANDA filers are blocked from marketing their generic drugs when the first ANDA filer (and 180-day exclusivity holder) delays launching its own generic drug product and the innovator refuses to sue the subsequent ANDA filers. Congress attempted to address this problem in amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act passed as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, but in Teva v. Pfizer the Federal Circuit ruled that those amendments did not affect the Federal Circuit’s “reasonable apprehension of suit” test for declaratory judgment jurisdiction. It appears that MedImmune has now forced the Federal Circuit to revisit that ruling.
Links to the briefs filed in Teva v. Novartis are provided below, courtesy of the attorneys who argued the case.
LINKS TO APPEAL BRIEFS:
- Teva’s Opening Brief
- Novartis’s Opposition Brief
- Teva’s Reply Brief
Source: OrangeBookBlog.com
____________________
Tuesday’s Top Biotech & Medical Stocks
Biotechnology
CURAGEN CORP [CRGN] +12.36%
REPLIDYNE, INC. [RDYN] +5.98%
INSMED INC [INSM] +4.76%
LPATH INC [LPTN.OB] +3.85%
POLYDEX PHARM LTD [POLXF] +3.31%
Diagnostic Substances
GENELABS TECH INC [GNLB] +0.57%
AVIGEN INC [AVGN] +0.29%
Drug Delivery
All stocks were down
Drug Manufacturers
UNIGENE LABS INC [UGNE.OB] +5.42%
OSCIENT PHARMACEUT [OSCI] +3.03%
LANNETT COMPANY INC [LCI] +1.74%
AVANIR PHARMACEUTICL [AVNR] +1.36%
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES [DVAX] +0.77%
Medical Appliances & Equipment
SIGNALIFE INC [SGN] +16.67%
SYNERON MEDICAL LTD. [ELOS] +6.47%
IRIDEX CP [IRIX] +4.81%
CHAD THERAPEUTICS [CTU] +4.12%
RESTORE MEDICAL INC [REST] +3.93%
Medical Instruments & Supplies
MICROMED CARDIOVASCU [MMCV.OB] +15.49% 0
NEPHROS INC. [NEP] +11.18%
QUANTRX BIOMEDICAL [QTXB.OB] +2.94%
ISORAY INC [ISRY.OB] +2.27%
DIOMED HOLDINGS INC [DIO] +0.96%
Medical Laboratories & Research
MEDTOX SCIENTFIC INC [MTOX] +1.48%
NEOGENOMICS INC [NGNM.OB] +0.65%
NATL DENTEX CP [NADX] +0.12%
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Monday’s Top Biotech and Medical Stocks
- Friday’s Top Biotech and Medical Stocks
____________________
State Update on HPV Vaccine Mandates
by Marks S. Senak
EyeOnFDA.com
Recently, I have submitted posts regarding the executive order issued by Texas governor Rick Perry that mandated HPV vaccine Gardasil for teenage girls and on the Merck (MRK) decision to pull back its lobbying program related to the same.
The New York Times recently produced an editorial in support of HPV vaccine state efforts to mandate the vaccine. But, as noted, the concept of mandating the vaccine has, for a number of reason, stirred controversy.
The National Conference of State Legislatures has been kind enough to provide a list of states that are considering HPV mandates, along with links to the legislation. It is quite an extensive set of states, including Arizona, Colorado, California, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and of course, Texas, as well as Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.
It is worth noting that some of the proposed legislation is to forbid mandating the vaccine, as well as bills that would require the mandate. In Maryland, legislation introduced to propose the mandate, as been withdrawn by its sponsor. Some of the states would require insurance coverage. Other variations, such as in Washington state, would include the provision of information to parents about the availability of the vaccine without mandating the vaccine itself while Utah would establish a measly $25,000 for an awareness campaign on the subject of HPV. How many people could you make aware with $25,000? That must be a typo.
Undoubtedly, there are many more chapters to this story.
Source: EyeOnFDA.com
RELATED READING:
- U-Turn on Gardasil Program: Balancing Product Promotion with Corporate Reputation
- Merck Pressured to Halt Gardasil Vaccine Lobbying
- Public Awareness Needed Before Vaccinating Girls with Merck’s Gardasil
- Raggedy Ann and the Anti-Vaccination Movement
____________________
Regeneron: Interesting Technology, Valuation a Problem
Regeneron (REGN) has been in operation since 1988. The company is one of the oldest of the pioneer biotechnology companies alongside Amgen (AMGN) and Genentech (DNA). However, its progress has been much slower than these other companies having no marketed products and only Phase II clinical products in the pipeline.
Activist investor Carl Icahn is reported to own 173,304 shares as of December 31, 2006 purchased in the 4Q 2006. This purchase may be a predictor of future purchases by the investor and more future shareholder activism. Last year, Icahn took over as chairman of the Biotech Company ImClone Systems (IMCL), begun in the mid 1980s, in which he holds a 13.7 percent stake, after aggressively seeking changes at the company.
The main value driver of this stock is the Phase II VEGF- Trap compound against multiple cancer types. Tumors must recruit a blood supply to provide the nutrients and oxygen required for tumor growth. VEGF or vascular endothelial growth factor is secreted by many tumors to stimulate the growth of new blood vessels in support of the tumor. VEGF binds to a protein called the “VEGF receptor,” which resides on the surface of blood vessel cells. When VEGF binds to its receptors, it stimulates their growth. A VEGF-Trap is a blocker of VEGF which prevents it from promoting blood vessels and thereby starves the tumor. One of the VEGF Trap’s major competitors is Avastin, marketed by Genentech, which, though a different molecule, acts in a similar fashion by inhibiting blood vessel growth to tumors. The company’s method of reducing blood vessel growth is also used in its development of the “wet” age related macular degeneration program called VEGF-Trap for the eye, also in Phase II. A competitive product, Lucentis, is also marketed by Genentech.
The excitement over this research and the success of Genentech, have been strong catalysts for this stock over the past 6-9 months. But we think that this excitement has been overdone resulting in the present inflated stock price. Competition is fierce in these therapeutic areas from both marketed products and compounds in the 
clinic. This will result in increasing segmentation and reduced market share for cancer therapies. In addition, we think any launch of the VEGF Trap molecule for cancer will probably be between 2 and 3 years after the initiation of Phase III trials or in 2009 or 2010.
One prediction we have read has the EPS in 2010 being $1.82 assuming a 2008 launch. Assuming a launch in 2009 we believe it is more likely to be between $0.50 and $1.00 per share. This gives a price of approximately $16 at an EPS of $0.85 using a PE of 45 and discounted by 25%. The current stock price is $21.60. This valuation at $16 per share is approximately $900 million which is more in line with comparable companies with Phase II compounds. For these reasons, even though the technology is very exciting and there is a reasonable chance of success in the clinic, investors should proceed cautiously before making an investment at current prices.
Source: AtlasBioResearch.com
____________________
Monday’s Top Biotech & Medical Stocks
Biotechnology
ORAGENICS INC [ONI] +12.51%
GTX, INC. [GTXI] +8.83%
XTL BIOPHARMACEUTICA [XTLB] +7.83%
CRITICAL THERAPEUTIC [CRTX] +7.27%
OMRIX BIOPHARMACEUTI [OMRI] +6.77%
Diagnostic Substances
HEALTHCARE TECH LTD [HCTL] +9.16%
OSTEOLOGIX INC [OLGX.OB] +6.84%
AVANT IMMUNOTHERAP [AVAN] +4.73%
SYNOVICS PHARMACEUTL [SYVC.OB] +4.00%
ASPENBIO PHARMA INC [APNB.OB] +3.60%
Drug Delivery
SYMBOLLON PHARM CL A [SYMBA.OB] +4.55%
SKYEPHARMA PLC [SKYE] +4.51%
COLUMBIA LABS INC [CBRX] +4.29%
NOVEN PHARMACEUTIC [NOVN] +1.29%
MATRIXX INITIATVS [MTXX] +0.55%
Drug Manufacturers
SCICLONE PHARMA [SCLN] +9.18%
ALTAIR NANOTECH INC [ALTI] +4.86%
JAVELIN PHARMACEUTIC [JAV] +4.14%
BRADLEY PHARMACTCL [BDY] +4.04%
ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE [ABBI] +4.01%
Medical Appliances & Equipment
MEDICALCV INC [MCVI.OB] +13.64%
VNUS MEDICAL TECHNOL [VNUS] +7.71%
CELSION CORP [CLN] +5.92%
LANGER INC [GAIT] +5.39%
ATS MEDICAL INC [ATSI] +3.03%
Medical Instruments & Supplies
OCCULOGIX, INC. [OCCX] +7.89%
ROCHESTER MEDICAL [ROCM] +6.31%
ENCISION INC [ECI] +3.76%
STRATEGIC DIAGNOST [SDIX] +3.50%
STEN CORPORATION [STEN] +3.02%
Medical Laboratories & Research
MEDASORB TECHNOLOGS [MSBT.OB] +2.17% $0
RADNET INC [RDNT] +1.43% $0
NEOGENOMICS INC [NGNM.OB] +1.32% $0
PSYCHEMEDICS NEW [PMD] +0.83% $75.0 M
ERESEARCHTECHNOLOG [ERES] +0.67%
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Friday’s Top Biotech and Medical Stocks
- Thursday’s Top Biotech and Medical Stocks
____________________