IMV Inc IMVIF

RE:RE:RE:Presentation today.

[alphaseeking001]

I agree Qwerty22 that it's not truly an apples to apples situation with the CAR-T comparison, however, like you... even with your "revised" numbers (and early, based on limited patient #s), DPX may well still be a very favourable option in DLBCL compared to CAR-T's, particularly given the significantly better safety profile.  Safety is as much a key element as efficacy... particularly when efficacy levels are at least comparable.  

On another note... anyone notice that with increased attention, we are getting way more spammers posting on our site?  I'll take it though as long as we are getting more investor exposure!

qwerty22 wrote:

I don't quite believe in that apples-to-apples comparison with CAR-T without bridging chemo. There are certain things that IMV do that makes their data look better (and other things that disadvantage IMV) in comparison to that Car-T trial. The one big thing for me is the definition of "evaluable". In IMV's trial it's patient that receives three dpx shots and 4 pembro treatment. In many trials it's any patient that receives any number of treatments.  What that allows IMV to do is remove all the fast progressing patients from the data. I think in effect what we actual have is 'all dlbcl' cohort in the Car-t trial and only 'slow-progressor dlbcl' cohort in the IMV trial. If you wanted to do 'all dlbcl' versus 'all dlbcl' then probably should go
3/16 Complete response 
5/16 ORR
forvthe dpx trial.

That would make the head-to-head
Dpx 19% CR, 31% ORR
Car-t 12% CR, 37% ORR

Still comparable but not so far ahead. As Philip pointed out there are other dis-advantages that the dpx trial has that makes the head-to-head more favourable for Car-t Overall it just points out the difficulty in trying to compare data from one trial to data from another trial. There are probably no true head-to- heads when trying to do it this way.

I think my worst case scenario here,  which might be a completely invalid way to do it, still shows dpx performing at least as well as car-t when trying to do an head-to-head on the abilities of the techs alone.

I think it's fair for IMV to try to do this sort of thing but I think we should be aware of the potential weaknesses of this sort of analysis.
 

 

QM45 wrote: Listened to the webcast this morning. These presentations are repetitive, but this close to the read outs and with my size position I can't afford to miss anything. It would be negligent. There is always a gold nugget that spills out that adds to the picture... 

Anyways. We are getting the ovarian data later this month. CONFIRMED. It was hard for Pierre not to spill the beans, but words "very interesting moment" and "very excited" and "allow for registration" were used. He pretty much said so without saying, that this data should be a game changer for IMV and it's def. one they are staking the future of the company on. 

Secondary excitement was around DLBCL and it's low toxicity, ease of use and superior performance vs CAR-T when you take out Chemo pre-treatment. There was some interesting data that I have not seen before in the presentation,  apples to apples comparison between the two.

The fact that they responded to the analysts on that issue shows me how close they have their heads to the ground. After all, this is not the first rodeo for these guys. 

All in all, bog standard presentation, but clearly stating we are in a pivotal next 4 months. 

Ovarian end of month. 
Top line DLBCL and Basket trials by ASCO in second Q. 
Bladder Phase 1 later this year.