I was listening to the William Blair webcast, and the CEO confirmed that this was the main reason for choosing Nexavar as the comparator, but also made a comment acknowledging the difference between regulatory success and commercial success.
If they could have afforded it, I still think showing non-inferiority vs. Sutent would have been better than showing superiority over Nexavar, even if they want to position tivozanib as a more tolerable option than its competitors. Of course, if median PFS in the tivozanib arm ends up being something like 15 months then that's a different matter.
I wonder whether going forward they will decide to do a head-to-head trial vs. Sutent (or even pazopanib), or whether they would rather focus on other indications. My guess is the latter.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.