RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Gilead oncology Here is an attempt to understand the Pepaxto situation, as they say more needs to be released to know exactly what is going on. It could be safety, it might not be.
https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/trial-results/oncopeptides-gives-one-hand-and-takes-away-other
I find it crazy they are respecting the conference embargo rule and not putting out the details now.
scarlet1967 wrote:
It will be interesting to see what happens to Pepaxto the other PDC with a price tag at 19k per course of the treatment. As of now it’s not clear the mortality is related to lack of safety or efficacy but despite the risks the drug still is prescribed to late stage multiple myeloma patients. Regardless of the reason for mortality it would be interesting to see whether FDA let them sell the drug or not. Now apparently multiple myeloma has a global market size of $20B but they are chasing late stage patients so it will be a smaller market, they priced their drug at mid range based on their CEO.
I read also some of other trials they are doing with the same drug for the same condition is to move it to earlier stages of cancer and some are speculating that also could be the reason for higher risks. I think THTX should closely follow this process.
SPCEO1 wrote: With 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."