I'm no fan of Merck
What we know is that a trial comparing Merck's and Schering-Plough's
Let's break this down:
- pre-specified -- the peek at the data was scheduled before the start of the trial
- blinded -- a separate independent steering committee made the decision so that, if the trial continued, investigators wouldn't have seen the data
- interim -- it was done before the trial was supposed to end
- analysis -- analysis
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.
It seems just as likely that the trial was ended because Zetia prevailed, or that finishing the trial was futile because it wouldn't show that either drug was better than the other. A trial testing Pfizer's
Abbott contributed drugs and money to the trial, but it was run by an independent investigator, so the company doesn't have any control over the release of the data. The lead investigator plans to release the data after it's been peer-reviewed. Let's hope his peers can keep a secret.
Investors need to keep rumors and conspiracies in perspective. Sanofi-aventis
And until someone who's in the know talks, it's useless to speculate or trade. But some will do so anyway. Just be careful out there, Fools.
Rumor has it, this Foolishness can make you money:
Pfizer is a recommendation of the Inside Value newsletter. If you're interested in picking through the wreckage for possible turnaround candidates, you should have the Inside Value team on your side. Check it out for free with a 30-day trial.