Top picks for ASH 2012

The American Society of Hematology’s (ASH) annual meeting is the most important event in the field of hematology. Although blood cancers represent the minority of cancer cases, the field is garnering a lot of attention thanks to great advancements over the past decade which translated to huge commercial success stories. This year’s meeting, scheduled for next month, will include important data for the following companies.

Incyte

My top pick is Incyte (INCY), which should have a very positive meeting for its myelofibrosis (MF) drug, Jakafi. The drug had a strong launch and is expected to achieve US sales of $130M in its first year. Incyte’s partner, Novartis (NVS) is about to launch Jakafi in Europe, where Incyte is eligible for a double-digit royalty rate.

As the first drug ever to be approved for MF, Jakafi is enjoying favorable market dynamics. Still, its use is limited to advanced stage patients due to 2 issues: Unproven survival benefit and side effects. Both issues will be addressed at ASH and could lead to market expansion beyond critically ill MF patients.

Myelofibrosis is a very heterogeneous condition, ranging from minimal symptoms to advanced disease that often leads to death due to progression to leukemia or other co-morbidities. Even late stage patients have a life expectancy of several years, implying that this indication is more chronic and that safety hurdles are higher.

Jakafi’s pivotal trials clearly demonstrated the drug’s effect on spleen size and symptoms relief. Nevertheless, it is still unclear whether the drug improves overall survival, which led some to view Jakafi more as a “quality of life” rather than a “life extending” treatment. In addition, Jakafi leads to bone-marrow toxicities (low platelet count and anemia), which are present in many MF patients at baseline.

The lack of survival benefit coupled with the drug’s side effects encouraged physicians to use Jakafi only in advanced stage patients with a high symptom burden. Earlier stage patients or those without symptoms are typically not prescribed the drug. Even among patients with advanced disease who are started on Jakafi, there is a substantial rate of discontinuation due to side effects.

At ASH, Incyte will present updated survival data from its two pivotal trials (COMFORT I & II). Although both studies were not designed to assess survival, there appears to be a strong trend favoring Jakafi according to the abstracts. The clear and early separation between the curves (see figure below) is remarkable given the short follow up and the fact that many patients in the control arm crossed over to receive Jakafi. It is important to note that the FDA is unlikely to add a survival benefit to the drug’s label, but assuming the signal persists, it could dramatically change market perception of Jakafi.

comfort1 survival

Source : ASH 2012 abstracts #800

On the safety profile front, Incyte is educating physicians to start patients on low doses and titrate the dose in the absence of bone marrow toxicities. At ASH, investigators will present clinical experience using lower doses of Jakafi in patients with low platelet counts. According to the abstract, this strategy retains substantial activity with limited effect on platelet count, which should pave the way for Jakafi use in this subset of patients. In the general MF population, it could decrease dropout rates and lead to longer average treatment duration.

Incyte will also present phase II results for Jakafi in Polycythemia Vera (PV), a more common but less aggressive blood disorder. The abstract confirms previous results, demonstrating very high efficacy in 34 PV patients. After 24 weeks of treatment, response rate was 97% and symptoms dramatically improved in the majority of patients.

Jakafi is currently in a phase III in PV patients who are resistant to or intolerant of hydroxyurea. Results are expected late in 2013 with approval in 2014. Although the prevalence of PV is higher than that of MF, PV patients are typically less symptomatic and are better served with available treatments. There is probably a subset of patients for whom Jakafi is suitable, but the size of this opportunity is debateable.

Pipeline progress

Incyte’s second most advanced drug is baricitinib, another Jak inhibitor partnered with Lilly (LLY). The drug’s primary indication is rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a phase III is expected to start shortly. Later this week, Incyte and Lilly will present updated results from a phase IIb trial in RA. Results are likely to be positive and in line with previous data given the decision to start phase III.

If approved, Incyte’s baricitinib will be the second Jak inhibitor (Pfizer’s tofacitinib recently won FDA approval) and potentially the third oral drug to reach the RA market. Still, RA represents a large enough opportunity for several oral drugs and based on experience with biologics, baricitinib could retain a substantial market share. In fact, Incyte could benefit from Pfizer’s market education efforts to transition patients from injectable biologics to oral medicines. The drug is also being evaluated in psoriasis and diabetic nephropathy.

Incyte recently started phase I for its selective Jak1 inhibitor. Selective Jak1 inhibitors might be ideally suited for RA due to their benign safety profile (no anemia). The most advanced Jak1 inhibitor in development is Galapagos’ GLPG0634, which was licensed by Abbott (ABT) in February this year for an upfront payment of $150M.

YM Biosciences

YM Biosciences (YMI) will present phase II data for its Jak inhibitor in MF,CYT387, which is a direct competitor to Incyte’s Jakafi. Investor focus will be on the drug’s alleged “anemia effect”, which could be an important differentiator from Jakafi.

MF patients often suffer from impaired bone marrow function which leads to anemia and require patients to receive blood transfusions. Jakafi does not resolve this symptom and in some cases leads to a worsening in anemia which requires treatment discontinuation.

Theoretically, YM’s CYT387 should have a similar clinical profile to that of Jakafi, as both drugs are Jak1/2 inhibitors. But clinical experience to date suggests the drug leads to resolution of anemia in a substantial portion of patients who are transfusion dependent. This discrepancy leads to widespread skepticism, which is justifiable unless YM provides a mechanistic explanation for the anemia effect.

At ASH, the company will present updated phase II results in 166 MF patients who received a range of CYT387 doses. According to the abstract, patients experienced reduction in spleen size and symptoms, which was similar to that observed with Jakafi. The anemia effect was maintained, as more than half of the transfusion dependent patients became transfusion independent. The anemia response was durable ranging from 3 months to 2 years.

Durability of response will be a major issue for YM at ASH, as transfusion frequency can be variable and unpredictable. The longer the follow up, the more robust the data set is, although the effect can be validated only in a randomized trial. Another important parameter would be incidence of anemia as a side effect in patients who are not anemic at baseline.

The market is waiting for 2 major catalysts to occur: A licensing deal with a large partner and initiation of a phase III. Both were expected to occur in the 2nd half of 2012 but still have not materialized. This delay raises some uncertainty regarding the validity of YM’s claims and also extends time to market. Analysts who cover the stock still unanimously expect a licensing deal to be announced in the very near future and attribute the delay in phase III start to YM’s decision to wait until it has a partner.

It is important to note that even if the anemia effect is not real, CYT387 still has a place in MF and PV. Even as a “me too” drug that will capture only 20% of Jakafi’s expected sales, the drug could generate $150M in sales in MF and PV alone.

Array Biopharma

Array (ARRY) will present results for its Ksp inhibitor, ARRY-520, in multiple myeloma. Data will include three regimens:

1)      ARRY-520 monotherapy

2)       ARRY-520+ dexamethasone

3)      ARRY-520 + Kyprolis

As single agent, the drug led to a partial response in 5 of 32 (16%) heavily pretreated patients (median of 6 prior regimens). This clearly shows the drug is active in multiple myeloma, but it is not potent enough to be pursued as a single agent.

When given with dexamethasone, ARRY-520 led to a PR rate of 22% (4 out of 22 patients) in more heavily pretreated patients (median of 10 prior regimens). Although the numbers are small, this response rate is encouraging given the advanced stage disease. As a benchmark, an abstract for Celgene’s (CELG) pomalidomide reports a PR rate of 26-29% in less heavily pretreated patients. It is plausible that ARRY-520 + Dex will be more active in earlier stage patients (~5 prior regimens), like those enrolled in Kyprolis’ and pomalidomide’s phase II trials.

Array also identified a potential biomarker for patient selection. When used retrospectively, the selected patients had a response rate of 33% (4 of 12).It remains to be seen whether this biomarker will be validated prospectively in larger patient cohorts.

Data at ASH will include additional patients in the combination cohort as well as duration of response. A response rate above 20% and a 5-month response duration could justify pursuing accelerated approval for ARRY-520 + Dex.

The abstract for the ARRY-520 + Kyprolis trial has limited data. Regardless of actual results at ASH, it will be hard to assess ARRY-520’s contribution as Kyprolis is an active agent.

The company already disclosed plans to start phase III trial next year.

Seattle Genetics

After reaching saturation with Adcetris in its approved indications, Seattle Genetics (SGEN) needs to find additional growth drivers. At ASH, three trials could serve as near term catalysts in the eyes of investors.

One trial evaluates Adcetris in CD30-positive DLBCL, an aggressive lymphoma with limited treatment options. In 15 DLBCL patients reported in the abstract, 7 (47%) achieved an objective response. This response rate, if replicated in larger studies, could make this indication very attractive for Adcetris. CD30 is expressed in 20-25% of DLBCL cases, which implies a patient population of 2000 patients per year in the US. This could translate to $100-150M in annual sales.

Genentech will present phase I results for two ADCs (anti-CD22 and anti-CD79b) based on Seattle Genetics’ platform. As I discussed 2 months ago, Genentech is Seattle Genetics’ most important partner with 8 ADCs in clinical testing, all of which utilize Seattle Genetics’ technology.

The data in the abstracts are limited but in both cases there were early signs of anti-tumor activity in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients. The anti-CD22 abstract reports tumor shrinkage in 5 patients, most of whom were treated at higher doses. The anti-CD79b abstract also reports tumor shrinkage in 5 patients, including 2 of 4 patients treated at the highest dose who experienced > 80% reduction in tumor burden.

Although it is still early to assign a commercial value to these programs, updated data at ASH could give investors a better sense of their value proposition. In particular, they will be compared to Pfizer’s (PFE) CD22 ADC (inotuzumab) and Sanofi CD19 ADC (SAR3419, based on Immunogen’s technology), which demonstrated activity in NHL as monotherapy.

Genentech already started phase II evaluating both ADCs in combination with Rituxan.

Genmab

Genmab (GEN.CO) and its new partner J&J (JNJ) will present updated results for daratumumab, a CD38 antibody in multiple myeloma. As a reminder, daratumumab demonstrated remarkable activity at ASCO earlier this year in heavily pre-treated patients. Its novel mode of action, its strong efficacy and benign safety profile make it one of the most important hematology agents in development.

The abstract does not reveal new information, but investigators will present updated results including a new cohort of 24 mg/kg. Late stage trials will probably start next year, as Genmab could face competition from Morphosys and Sanofi, which are also developing CD38 antibodies.

Onyx

Onyx’s (ONXX) Kyprolis recently got FDA approval for multiple myeloma based on a 23% response rate in heavily pre-treated patients (median of 5 prior regimens). At ASH the company will present initial results for a higher dose of the drug using a longer infusion time. Of 20 evaluable patients, 11 (55%) achieved a PR. Although the sample is size is very small and patients had only a median of 4 prior regimens, this response rate is promising. Onyx recently initiated a phase III trial which compares high dose Kyprolis to Velcade.

Portfolio update

We are adding another position in Incyte going into ACR and ASH.

At ACR, the company is expected to present strong RA data for baricitinib, which should have a similar clinical profile to that of approved and investigational oral agents. The recent approval for Pfizer’s Jak inhibitor, Tofacitinib, and its relatively high pricing bode well for baricitinib’s long term potential.

At ASH, the company should present updated overall survival data for both pivotal trials in MF. If the trend in the abstracts is maintained, it should enable Jakafi to branch beyond late stage patients and facilitate broader adoption across all subtypes of MF.

We are keeping YM Biosciences going into ASH, based on the compelling anemia response data in the abstract. Although the anemia response can only be validated in a randomized phase III trial, there is substantial clinical evidence suggesting YM’s hypothesis is realistic. Even if CYT387’s has no effect on anemia, it still has some commercial value as an effective phase III-ready MF drug.

     Portfolio holdings – Nov 11th 2012

portfolio- 11-11-2012 - after changes biotech etfs - 11-11-2012

 

 

 

 

87 thoughts on “Top picks for ASH 2012

  1. Nice article. On ARRY, I think there may be some 520+Velcade data at ASH as well. But the 520+carfilzomib is what I really have an eye on.

    Separately, any thoughts on CLVS after the blow-up today? I think their selective EGFR inhibitor sounds interesting and they expect PoC data in 2H13. It inhibits T790M mutation. CC today was refreshing in that the CEO didn’t try to spin failure of lead drug. Not sure about their PARP drug. Even earlier stage, they have the deal with ARRY to develop cKIT inhibitor active against exon 17 mutation.

  2. The EGFR story looks good on paper but so far several companies tried to develop t790m inhibitors but nothing worked so far. There are other irreversible inhibitors in development although clvs’ molecule could be more selective towards mutated forms of the receptor.
    I thought CLVS was expensive before the panc cancer failure, let alone today.

    Ohad

  3. Thanks Ohad. Didn’t realize there were prior T790M inhibitors that failed. Do you know if those failures were due to safety or efficacy issues, or both? I think the issue with these type of TKIs is normally safety. CLVS claims that they are nowhere near an MTD and safety looks really good so far. Obviously efficacy data still to come.

  4. Exelixis had XL647, which inhibits among other things T790M mutation. Pfizer and PI have potent pan-HER inhibitors in p3 that also inhibit T790M.
    One advantage CLVS and ARIA have compared to those guys is the selective inhibition of mutated EGFR over normal EGFR. It still remains to be seen how it will pan out for them.

    Ohad

  5. Ohad

    Do u think arry is oversold? Have u been pleased with their presentation? And do u know why they do not discuss their hepc collaboration?

    Thanks
    goooulet

  6. goooulet: We’ll see what Ohad says but can tell you that I’m very long ARRY and follow HCV space closely (long Medivir) and I can tell you that I assign little to no value to danoprevir at all. It seems very poorly positioned relative to the competition to me.

  7. Robert. My answer to the first 2 questions is YES.
    Their HCV molecule is almost irrelevant as it is a protease inhibitor. Novel molecules (primarily NS5a and b inhibitors) appear more promising although protease inhibitors might be used eventually with those drugs.

    Ohad

  8. I’ll talk to my buddy today…he is a huge hep c research doctor…does all the big trials…he wasn’t to high on sangamo last time we talked for he was concerned with their finances really foremost. I’ll c if he thinks if there is any application for Dano.

    Thank for the feedback guys

  9. McBio also he felt abbots hep c was a bit behind others in this race and showed some concern recently by some pause on their next steps forward (no specifics though)

  10. Ohad: I don’t have an issue w/PIs per se as I’m long Medivir for their 2nd gen PI, simeprevir. Just think danoprevir is poorly positioned relative to other PIs like simeprevir as it’s not QD and don’t think safety/efficacy as good. I don’t think PIs are mutually exclusive w/NS5A class; can be used in combo. Remains to be seen of course the degree to which they will be used in combo w/NS5A and nuke class. Think PIs work better than NS5A in certain HCV genotypes.

    Robert: I think GILD is in best shape in HCV space. Think ABT is right there too but don’t like that their combos seem to have a much higher daily pill burden than what GILD is proposing. Still think GILD will get biggest piece of market, but hopefully others will carve out a role due to cheaper pricing e.g. I only hope JNJ, which is developing Medivir’s simeprevir, will be able to carve out enough of a role to help Medivir. Remains to be seen. Very hard to predict sector that is constantly changing but I think GILD looks to be in best shape here right now.

  11. Hello Ohad

    is Tivozanib approval in europe planned only after us approval?

    why the trails do not include more residents of the United States?

    Thanks

    Alex

  12. I think they plan to file in Europe shortly, they won’t wait for FDA approval.

    It’s easier and faster torecruit in eastern europe than the US for oncology indications. A lot of companies do it to some extent.
    The geographical distribution is probably the underlying cause of the inferior OS.

    Ohad

  13. Hello Ohad
    from your experience in what situations you have to be cautious form – sell on the news effect in Biotec stocks
    (regarding the nearing exel and acad results for instance)

    Thanks
    Alex

  14. Ohad: Any thoughts on ACAD’s pimavanserin results today? I thought for sure the trial would fail. Completely wrong. Sounds like a complete success. Second Phase 3 trial will be identical in design.

  15. I came across this http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+PT+Change/Leerink+Swann+Downgrades+AVEO+Pharmaceuticals+%28AVEO%29+to+Market+Perform%2C+Cites+Tivozanib+Risks/7777885.html

    what do you think about –

    “We also view recent COMPARZ data (GSK, MP) as a net negative for AVEO due to potentially increased data hurdle and the kidney cancer market likely to face some uncertainties due to new immunotherapy anti-PD1, both limiting upside assuming approval.”

    Thanks

  16. I wouldn’t expect much of a jump, as this approval is already baked in. One positive surprise is that the FDA didn’t require a REMS program (as opposed to Caprelsa).

    Ohad

  17. Ohad: aren’t there some concerns about the label warnings for cabo? Were there some black box warnings?

  18. I think black box warning could just be what they r seeing with vega inhibitors, I do not think this issue is unique to cabo

    Yes looks like a quick sell off before a slow steady rise, good to see the science validated a d looking forward to other potential future indications

  19. Ohad,

    Why the sell-off in EXEL? Do you see it as a buying opportunity? What are the next major catalysts?

  20. Hi Ohad,
    What’s your opinion on Genmab collaboration news? and what do you think about YMI latset news?
    Thanks as always,
    Chris

  21. Hi Ohad,

    Good stuff. Do you why there seems to be very little information on INCB039110? I assume this is the JAK1 inhibitor you mention? clinictrials.org indicates they have gone straight to phase 2 in RA, MF, and psoriasis. It seems like they are dosing a much higher quantity than Jakafi. Does this mean anything? Do you think we can assign any value to the IDO1 inhibitor? Is this an unproven target? How does Incyte’s cMET inhibitor compare to Tivatinib or MET-inhibiting antibodies? Do you see Novartis still advancing the cMET inhibitor in a rapid fashion given the tivatinib blow up?

    It seems like Incyte has a solid pipeline. I wonder where the stock will be in another year or two. That baricitinib data appears to be better (agreed?)than the recently approved Pfizer compound which they estimate for like $2billion in sales someday.

    Thanks

  22. Ohad,

    Have you seen the final results of the Phase II presented by CLDX at SABC today. (December 8, 2012)?

    What do you think?

    Marucci has already said that he’d like to do a Phase III in triple-negative, high-expressors with OS endpoint in either 3rd or 4th line patients. “End-of-Phase II-meeting” scheduled for this month.

    Can CLDX get a BP partner off of these results? If CLDX can’t get a partner, then they will probably have to raise some capital.

    A sleeper for CLDX could be CDX-1135 in dense deposit disease, an orphan indication.

    An oncologist friend of mine thinks CDX-1127 could be an important drug. What are your thoughts on CDX-1127 and CDX-1135? (I realize that they are VERY early stage.)

  23. Just to add to Richard’s post, CDX-011 OS results were stat sig in patients with high GPNMB and also triple-negative even though the study wasn’t powered to detect this.

  24. Appologies for the delay, got back from a vacation.

    Chris – Genmab are doing a great job monetizing their technology. Deals aren’t as lucrative as those of Macrogenics/Fstar but it’s a start.
    Re YMI – Some claim divesting nimo is a good sign the company is prepping itself for a sale/partnership. There is a lot of skepticism re this option, which is justifiable given recent track record.

    Cbomb – yes, this is their selective jak1 inhibitor. It is impossible to go straight to p2, i assume they did classic p1 in healthy volunteers. Not sure anything can be concluded from doses at this stage. IDO is an intriguing target but despite a lot of preclinical data, clinical results to date didn’t demonstrate efficacy. From what I recall, NVS plans to pursue INCY’s MET inhibitor despite tivantinib. Baricitinib is considered comparable to Pfizer’s tofacitinib.

    Richard – I think the data in GPNMB-high pts is very positive although the number are small (33 pts). Don’t like the strategy to target both triple-neg and GPNMB-high.

    Ohad

    Ohad

  25. Ohad – Regarding CLDX targeting triple-neg and GPNMB-high, I think it’s a pretty clear path to market for them given results and need here (provided they replicate results in bigger trial). Also, I don’t think they have entirely ruled out still going after general GPNMB-high. Keep in mind they also recently said they would expand to testing 011 in other tumors w/GPNMB-high (3rd-line melanoma, lymphoma, osteosarcoma, squamous cell-lung. I think a lot of how this plays out depends on if they land a partner for 011 now. Presumably a big pharma partner, if they land one, would significantly expand the scope of testing.

  26. Ohad,

    What’s your take on YMI’s latest report released today, 12/9/2012, on it’s Phase I/II Data for JAK Inhibitor CYT387 in Myelofibrosis ? Any new information or supporting data for optimism?

    Thanks, as always.

    Dan

  27. Ohad,

    Why do you think that TN/high-expressors is not the way to go for CLDX? I think you go where the data tells you to go and the data here seems to tell CLDX to pursue TN/high-expressors. But you seem not to agree.

    Dr. Alex To said:

    “We think these Phase 2 results clearly demonstrated the promise of CDX-011. A partnership with a larger company in the near term will be beneficial. While it is entirely feasible for CLDX to run a small registrational trial in triple negative patients and to get the drug on the market as soon as possible, to realize the commercial potential of this drug, a large comprehensive pivotal program to explore CDX-011 in all GPNMB high expresser breast cancer patients, from the salvage setting all the way to front-line combination usages, plus exploring the drug in other GPNMB expressing cancer types, will be needed. With this data set, we will be surprised if no partner steps up to the plate.”

    I think he’s right. We’ll see what Marucci has to say at Oppenheimer in a couple of days.

  28. YMI’s data set was good but the stock won’t move until they announce a partnership deal.

    ARRY – results look pretty good, still didn’t have a chance to look at them closely.

    CLDX – The data in GPNMB-high looks quite good with a larger sample size. TNBC is an elusive subset, tumors are defined by they lack rather than what they express.

    Ohad

  29. Hi Ohad,
    1. YMI’s Management states company’s assumption is for a collaboration/handoff of CYT387 into PHASE3. What do they mean by handoff in your opinion?

    2. Regarding ARQL, what are the good news we should expect in order for the stock price to move higher? (my average is around $4).

    Thanks as always
    Chris

  30. I assume the term handoff refers to an out licensing deal where YMI has no active part in develop,ent and commercialization.

    The next catalyst is CRC data. Positive data in cMET high patients could be very meaningful for the stock.

    Ohad

  31. Good profit, on YMI, thanks for all your research. I rolled all my profits from MITI into YMI, Now I need to find the next one. Your research and blog is truly the best. Please keep it up.

  32. Ohad,

    Good call on YMI. You were right about the “partnership” required to move the stock. Just didn’t think it would happen this quickly!

    You’re insight is invaluable.

    Thanks, as always.

    Dan

  33. Ohad:
    Great work on YMI, thanks again for all your research. It is high quality ouput. Again, another great call.
    Eagle75

  34. Ohad, another great call on your part with YMI — congratulations! Thank you so much for all of your wonderful research and insights.
    Best,
    Debra

  35. a real good one, had accumulated ymi in my personal, join, ira, sap ira, 401k…took one big profit today. Thanks for the new year holiday gift……we need a new pick for all this new found cash.

  36. What do you think about today’s direct offering in snta?
    I believe that this might already be the third one this year.

  37. Very impressive, no discount, no underwriting fee. Removes a major financial overhang. It also implies there are no major near term events the BOD knows of.

    Ohad

  38. Ohad what do you think of the Infinity molecule IPI-145? pan PI3k inhibitor? Impressive fundraising today. MC is already over a billion. Too expensive? Or will we see Ariad/PCYC type results?

  39. I am a little ambivalent on them. The drug looks very good, possibly better than GILD’s compound. In addition, they activity on gamma PI3K could be an important differentiator and represent opprtunity in T cell lymphomas and autoimmune diseases. However, both PCYC and GILD are 2 years ahead of them, the market cap is $1B+ and Millenium’s stake is unclear to me.

    Ohad

  40. I think its getting harder to have confidence in fostamatinib. Also PFE, LLY & INCY have encouring data. Only problem IMHO with INCY is because they are going for rigorous ph 3 program which wont be available till late 2014 or early 2015, giving Rigel opportunity if their phase 3 deliver strong data.

    DJ

  41. Agree with the skeptical thoughts on RIGL. They showed that fostamatinib is less effective than Humira in patients that respond to both Humira and fostamatinib. How are they going to effectively compete with Humira knowing that fostamatinib is inferior, particularly with the prospect of Humira biosimilars to come?

    I know they are testing in P3 in patients that don’t respond to Humira, but how likely is that to be positive given similar Phase 2b TASKi3 trial that failed?

  42. Ohad, I took my profits from YMI and put into titan pharmaceuticals TTNP. Short term looks very interesting, potential partner and NDA announcement from FDA. I am bit leery of implantable devices to do potential problems from the procedure, but they have found a great niche.

    Probuphine is Titan’s novel subdermal implant formulation designed using its ProNeura technology to deliver six months of buprenorphine hydrochloride (“buprenorphine”) following a single treatment. Probuphine is being developed for the treatment of opioid dependence.

    Have you ever come across them.

    Thanks again for all your work.

  43. Hey Ohad,

    Have you ever heard of TG Therapeutics? (I guess formerly Manhattan pharma?) M.C. $50million with a CD20 MAb (Ph2) and a PI3k delta inhibitor (still preclinical). I need to do some research, but just wondering if you had researched them yourself and had an opinion. Thanks.

  44. Hey Ohad
    regarding the GILD aquisition of Ymi, would love to get your views:
    – what are the implications for INCY
    – could the $500 M (which you said is a bargain for GILD) purchase indicate that the YMI compound is not stellar? or that GILD is expecting though competition from INCY and Novartis? What do you think?
    Thanks for you insight, as always
    D

  45. Cbomb: I looked on TG’s Web site and I believe a presentation poster there seemed to imply that their PI3K was similar to GILD’s PI3K. Didn’t really suggest how it is better than the GILD PI3K, which is further ahead to begin with. Also, not sure how it would compete with INFI’s PI3K which may wind up best-in-class (it inhibits both delta and gamma, not just delta like the GILD/TG PI3K).

  46. mcbio,

    thanks, i haven’t had a chance to follow up yet. MC was just so low it made it enticing for a follow-up for sure. Be interesting to see if anyone comes out with a PI3k gamma selective inhibitor soon specifically for AIDs. I’m sure it’s in the works at many places.

  47. Dan – The implications for INCY are that there is now a more than capable competitor who will test CYT387’s anemia effect in a robust randomized study. INCY still has at least 2 years to establish its presence.
    Regarding te acquisition price, to me it implies many other potential partners were skeptical about the anemia effect.

    Roy – Every additional program increases chances of success but deal terms are an order of magnitude lower than what would have charged today.

    Ohad

  48. Hi Ohad, any idea why AZN would initiate another Phase 2 for AZD6244 (selumetinib). I tried posting the link to clinicaltrials.gov but it appears I cant post links. It was submitted Dec 12, 2012 and the trial is not limited to KRAS mutant NSCLC. Do you think AZN would go through another Phase II in this larger set before initiating a Phase III?

  49. Hey Ohad
    thanks for your replay!
    Another question on INCY for you. Management has been unwilling to talk abot 101, I think the new Jak1 inhibitor that is currently in phase 2. I thought about it and all I coudl come up with for their motivation to keep that compound secret, is that perhaps they are now a bit worried about the “anemia effect” (YMI) and hope that maybe this new compound may have more positive effect on anemia. Another reason is that they may not want to upset Novartis… what do you think? Why are they so cautions with disclosure?
    Thanks a lot, once again

  50. Hey Ohad
    also, regading MF, wht do you make of GERN success in ET and expanding into MF and other hematological diseases? And does it seem like a potential cure (more so than Jak inihibition)?
    Thanks

  51. Ohad: I’m an ARRY long but I think it’s fair to wonder if the P3 selumetinib program will begin soon. Why would AZN start a P2 trial in NSCLC if they were set to move to P3? Just doesn’t make a lot of sense. All this said, I think MEK162 is the much more important of ARRY’s two MEKs given the NVS development path (namely MEK162 in combo w/their in-house PI3Ks). You could also make a case for ARRY-614 or ARRY-520 being more critical to the ARRY story too, I think.

  52. ..they are starting a phase 2 with the new combo and will modify phase 3 trial depending on phase 2 they are tarting now.ithink the we formulation is driving them to do this

  53. It’s not a new combo per se for this new Phase 2. AZN is testing the same dose of selumetinib used in the prior P2 but they have lowered the docetaxel dose a bit from the docetaxel dose used in the prior P2. Presumably the hope is to maintain efficacy but improve tolerability.

  54. Dan – I am not sure they are trying to hide it, on the last CC they discussed it quite openly. Since this is a JAK1 selective compound I don’t know how effective it will be in MF. Probably more relevant to RA.

    mcbio – From what I remember the p3 trial should start in Q1 and I will be surprised if they postpone it. On the other hand, anything is possible.

    Ohad

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *