|
In der gestrigen Telko zu den Jahreszahlen wurden einige der Themen, zu denen ich vorher schrieb, in der Q&A-Session angesprochen. Mit den Antworten kann ich im Grunde gut leben. Zum Thema 2009-Dosiseskalation ohne Prophylaxe: “Going into this dose escalation as we began to realize that we could dose escalate beyond six mgs per kg and as we kept going, we made a very affirmative decision in collaboration with our Safety Review Committee to dose escalate initially without ocular prophylaxis so that we could get a clear sense of the overall profile of the drug from a safety and efficacy standpoint. That was a very affirmative decision that we took early on in the program and we took that decision in the full expectation that once we learned about the safety and efficacy of the drug at these upper doses, we would then implement like most likely implement ocular prophylaxis, if needed depending upon what dose we got to which is exactly what we've done. And so the toxicity that we've certainly paid the most attention to and that we have a really good, I believe a really good handle on moving forward is ocular toxicity. The others are do you really think about it. You look at the safety table, it's still really early days in understanding what their incidence is, what their severity is because the patient numbers are still small, we need to learn more. So we're really quite focused on the ocular tox at this point. We think we've got a handle on it. We're going to need to learn more about some of the other -- about the integrated safety profile as we move forward and there's much still to be learned for sure.” Zum Thema BMS-Kooperation (Celgene wird nicht erwähnt): “In conjunction with our broad R&D update yesterday, we announced that BMS has de-prioritized three collaboration targets. This reflects the natural ebb and flow of a long-term multi-target discovery stage biotech pharma partnership. The collaboration remains in full force in effect and we look forward to continuing to make progress on existing collaboration programs and future targets that BMS may select.” Zum Thema 188: I mean as I said it's a funny thing actually because we've had several discussions with investors over the last year where we've been asked, why you're doing both and it looks like CX-072 is working fine. We don't quite understand why you're doing CX-188. And so I have to say we were rather surprised by some of the feedback yesterday and really a little taken aback by some of the comments in the biotech press which I think got the wrong end of the stick by a long margin. So yes, I could see if I could see a situation develop as I said yesterday, where in a potential partnership, a partner may have interest in that molecule as well. But for now, we're really thrilled with where we are with CX-072, it's a couple of years ahead in terms of the clinical program, it's performing just as we designed it to and from a capital allocation standpoint, it just makes all the sense in the world to put PDL-1 on the shelf for the time being. Zum Thema “Bewusstsein, dem Markt demnächst Entwicklungspfade für die Projekte aufzeigen zu müssen”: “And as I said in my introductory remarks really for both of the lead programs, we're at a point in time right now where as I said we're making that transition from the platform, proof-of-concept last year to 2019 where the development program supporting the product profiles is going to take more shape. But we'll have more to say about that as the year goes on. We're just not quite ready to do that just yet. So hang in there, it's all coming.” |
|
| aus der Diskussion: | CytomX - ein bahnbrechender Ansatz in der Tumortherapie |
| Autor (Datum des Eintrages): | BReal (28.02.19 09:36:37) |
| Beitrag: | 1,043 von 1,462 (ID:59983417) |
| Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr © wallstreetONLINE | |