RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Gilead oncologyWhy some here are still bringing this melphalan flufenamide (Pepaxto) as a good comparative to TH1902 just because the company making it calls it a peptide drug conjugate? It is not a PDC, it has nothing in common with TH1902. This drug is and act like a small molecule that is a prodrug. It has no specificity, it diffuses in every cells, that's why it could have toxicity problems. Again, it cannot be compared to a real PDC, like TH1902 or Lutathera.
SPCEO1 wrote: And, therefore, it is not hard to imagine the rush of companies with chemo drugs looking to partner with TH. What partnering model will TH likely use in cancer? Whatever it might be, it will certainly produce a lot of cash flow.
Wino115 wrote: Your comment brings up an interesting revenue modeling thought that I hadn't contemplated before. We usually look at drug revenues as the annual price for the drug or therapy, regardless of it's taken once or 12 times. The chemo cancer models are generally based on the typical annual cycle based on experience. From what I gather, in things like TNBC, a typical course of treatment is something between 3 and 6 cycles depending on dosage. Then I guess you can do it 1-3 times a year.
With the SORT1 approach we may see that they can have far more doses per patient in any given course or year; hence, higher per patient annual revenue. This assumes pricing for SORT1 is similar to pricing for the competing chemo regimens. In modeling revenues, this would be a very powerful effect where you might actually see a patient do 10-15 doses over 6 months versus a third of that for typical treatments. Their per patient revenue will be significantly higher if that's the case.
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.