RE:RE:RE:Audience survey of uro-oncologistsCancerSlayer wrote: DJDawg wrote:
I'm posting this comment as part of an old post so that the photo gets reposted.
Recall that the audience survey for the competitors was not great back in the spring. This was to audience of uro-oncologists.
Anktiva + BGG combo was approved end April of this year. The company said that at the time of approval that they had 20,000 doses ready to go.
In June, they reported "ANKTIVA® Now Covered By More Than a Dozen Insurance Plans Representing Over 100 Million Lives"
Cost for one instillation in one patient is around 37,700 (quoted) with each treatment course being 6 weekly doses at start followed by 3 weekly doses at months 4, 7, 10, 13 and 19.
So 37,700 x 6 = 226200 for the 6 week induction. Usually drug companies and medicare negotiate around 25% discount on sticker so let's say 170,000 per patient induction.
IBRX just posted earnings for the most recent quarter. Market cap of 2.75 Billion and earnings last quarter were 1m dollars. Yikes. That means they treated something like 6-10 patients maybe.
My hunch is that when the urologist presents the data and says that it will require this many instillations and there is a 1/4 chance it will come back in next two years, it has not been that appealing.
So clearly the void for NMBIC treatment has not been filled by adstiladrin or anktiva yet. Good news for TLT as long as they can pitch it properly.
The real competition maybe Gem/Doc. However, my understanding is Gem/Doc is an ongoing monthly protocol and the DOR rates are not great once you stop the monthly instillations. Someone else may confirm that for me.
So in summary, IBRX launched the best competitor yet and it has NOT been a seller.
Agree...So, well over $1/2 million (per discounted pricing) for only "a single treatment course" (= many individual treatments) when using Anktiva. The high number of doses & high cost will certainly be a stumbling block for sales & patient compliance, which in turn will likely impact provider usage/prederence imo...not to mention ongoing shortages in locally produced BCG or its equivalent. The Gem/Doce protocol appears promising per face value, but the retrospective study upon which it was recommended did not analyze 100% BCG-unresponsive patients. A significant portion received limited BCG dosing or were essentially BCG-naive. So, when talking about Gem/Doce, we have to keep the above in mind when making an apples to apples comparison. Additionally, in order to reap more significant benefit in this combo therapy (by a factor of almost two), patients had to undergo ongoing monthly dosing (high cost & high patient burden) vs those under observation alone. When considering cost & the targeted patient population (BCG-unresponsive & BCG-naive), I believe our ACT has great potential to at least fill in the gaps, if not replace this relatively new off-label standard of care...& do it at lower cost & with significantly fewer treatments. As far as I can tell, patients continue to need significantly better options! All imo.
Looks like Stanley's got Slick-Con on a leash. Poor thing, doesn't know what's coming for it. --------------------------- "Rutherrin and Metformin are both scientifically proven to cross the blood-brain barrier, as well as tumour-specific blood barriers, this new discovery potentially allows the precise targeting of cancer cells by Rutherrin anywhere inside the body, including the brain, followed by their synergistic activation by Metformin"