RE:RE:RE:RE:Gilead oncologyWith cancer, we also want some of these drugs to be shown to work well but it is better for TH if they also have side-effects since by unitiing any of these new drugs to TH's peptide, the efficacy may be further improved and the side-effects greatly diminished. What we don't want to see (from a commercial perspective only - we would really like to see this from a human perspective) is a drug that cures a certain type of cancer or that has a fair amount of efficacy and no side-effects.
qwerty22 wrote: Yes we want the targeted drug approach to have winners. (We want NASH to have winners too)
The other thing the Barclay guys highlight there is SERDs which seem to be a new class of drugs for treating breast cancer. It seems like half the oncology trials you read about are for the hard to treat end of the breast cancer spectrum. There is an awful lot of data being generated in that space and inevitably your drug is going to be compared to that. Maybe we are luck they have a chance at a number of different cancers with the basket trial. This is just my perception, it could be wrong.
SPCEO1 wrote: From our perspective, we want GILD's Immunomedics purchase to turn out great as that will help other management teams to spend wildly on partnerships with TH's cancer platform.
qwerty22 wrote: Some pretty divergent views on Trodelvy. Our friend Abrahams at RBC earlier this year had them capturing close to 100% of the mTNBC market. As this guy hints at I think what most generates opinion on this drug is the $21 bil Gilead paid for it and whether that is justified and whether that tells you something about the good/bad decisions Gilead's leadership are making.
Wino115 wrote:
Gilead reported light earnings as HIV drugs didn't grow and Remdesivir shrank. Recall they bought Immunomedics for the breast cancer ADC Trodelvy. There ongoing breast cancer trial is called TROPICS-2 and it's an ADC targeting Trop-2 but using that SN-38 toxin. Here's the Barclays comment mentioning even if statistically significant they don't see the data leading to clinical use. So it brings in to question Gileads strategy to grow oncology.
"While we think TROPICS-02 will likely reach a statistically significant result, we're less sure of clinical significance and near-term SERD read-outs could complicate the HR+ metastatic breast commercial opportunity. We acknowledge investors may view the downside as limited here with the stock trading <10x on 2021E EPS, however, we think this misses the potential negative implications and perception surrounding Gilead's oncology strategy if TROPICS-02 data doesn't result in an approval, particularly with minimal EPS growth on the horizon over the mid-term."