RE:RE:PfizerOne way that would allow to restart the phase I on TH1902 is to forget the baket trial, identify the best cancer type where they think it could be effective based on the data they have. Then, test potential patients for enrollment for real high sortilin overexpression, modify the dosing regimen to whatever they think would be better. Do this very small trial and see what happen. In other words, chose the best part of the basket trial and add positive sortilin testing as a criteria for enrollment ans a modified dosing regimen. Test it on 15 patients, that's it. But I would only do that if one cancer type seems better than others based on the data they already have.
Wino115 wrote: Part of the process they need to get through with whatever data they have on the Phase1 trial for Sort1+ and whatever else they may add to it (or not) is what Qwerty and JFM have said in the past --is there enough evidence there to show validity to the construct of the peptide, the target expression, the theorized internalization and MOA, understanding the limitations of a Phase1, to attract someone to push it further with other toxins or other approaches.
The Univ Gotemberg academics think so as do the millions they've attracted from venture cap investors. Can the "relative" safety and efficacy be tilted just a tad bit further, which is all you'd really need for refractory patients? They'd need pretty solid evidence to answer that enough to attract a Pfizer, but if there is anything supportive there a thesis presented by Rothemberg would certainly be listened too. It's a high bar though and we don't know what's in all the data.
Given the seemingly low cost that Juniper showed for actually enrolling patients in his post 2 weeks ago, I would sure hope they spend a few hundred thousand to trial the new dose regimen. Junipers numbers also lead me to believe that a lot of the R&D cost was in their lab perhaps with some of the new combinations they've spoken about, and of course the Trograzo IM and F8. Shows that you should be able to bring RD costs down a whole lot if you need to without affecting revenues or meaningful RD you need to do. I wonder if things like trying to find a NASH partner also get lumped in to RD since it's technically trying to further and investigational pipeline drug. Likely a lot they can do there to get to EBITDA breakeven as they are projecting. We'll know more in a month.
muslix1 wrote: Sorry it's written in French... But basically it says that Pfizer wants to invest in small biothechnologies...
PAUL can surely arrange something afer 35 years of service at Pfizer...
we will know
Pfizer voit des opportunits d’investissement dans les biotechnologies
PHOTO JOHANNA GERON, REUTERS
« Nous sommes sur le march pour acheter des choses, nous nous sommes engags acheter des technologies et des projets qui deviendront des mdicaments », a dit le PDG du gant pharmaceutique amricain Pfizer, Albert Bourla.
(Davos) Le PDG du gant pharmaceutique amricain Pfizer, Albert Bourla, a voqu mercredi des opportunits d’investissement pour les grands laboratoires afin de pallier les difficults de financement que commencent connatre les plus petites socits des biotechnologies.
Le secteur biotech « a eu des problmes pour trouver des financements, avec les taux d’intrt qui remontent et les autres incertitudes dans le monde, parce que ce sont des investissements haut risque. Ils ont des problmes pour financer leurs tudes », a-t-il soulign lors d’un vnement organis par le Wall Street Journal Davos, en marge d’une runion du Forum conomique mondial.
« Les plus petites entreprises sont compltement dpendantes des marchs financiers », contrairement de grands groupes comme Pfizer qui ont les moyens de s’autofinancer. « Pour oprer dans les quelques prochains mois, ils ont besoin que quelqu’un les soutienne financirement. Et il y en a 5000 aux tats-Unis », a-t-il poursuivi.
« C’est le moment de pouvoir aider les biotechs en faisant des partenariats avec elles », a-t-il jug.