2 AIDS Drugs Get Top Priority for FDA Evaluation

A Food and Drug Administration official said Friday that two drugs manufactured by Orange County-based pharmaceuticals firms are among about half a dozen medications that will receive top priority for FDA evaluation as treatments for AIDS.

However, the decision, made Tuesday, regarding Virazole, manufactured by ICN Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Isoprinosine, produced by Newport Pharmaceuticals International Inc., does not necessarily increase the likelihood that they will be approved, said Brad Stone, an FDA spokesman. It means only that Virazole and Isoprinosine--like azidothymidine, interferon and other possible AIDS medications--will receive the most rapid consideration possible if their makers seek the drugs’ approval as treatments for acquired immune deficiency syndrome and AIDS-related complex, Stone said.

Last February, the FDA denied Newport Pharmaceuticals’ application to market Isoprinosine--which the company believes to have immune system-enhancing qualities--as a treatment for AIDS-related complex. AIDS-related complex often precedes the onset of AIDS. Newport Pharmaceuticals officials have said they plan eventually to submit new test data in support of the drug.

The Newport Beach-based company’s common stock, which is traded on the national over-the-counter market, closed Friday at $5.625 a share, unchanged for the day on a volume of just over 29,000 shares traded.

Virazole, which was approved last December as a treatment for a sometimes-fatal infant respiratory disease, is now being tested as a treatment for AIDS-related complex at eight medical centers across the United States.

Common stock in Costa Mesa-based ICN was the seventh most active issue on the New York Stock Exchange Friday, closing the day at $20.875 a share, up 37.5 cents on a volume of 1.66 million shares traded. ICN shot up $3.125 a share on Thursday after shareholders voted to reincorporate ICN in Delaware.

Milan Panic, ICN founder and chairman, said Friday that the reincorporation move is not part of an anti-takeover plan. Rather, he said, the company wants to change its place of incorporation because Delaware laws regarding liability of directors and officers of a company are more favorable than California laws.