wonder how K will be used in AML- for induction or consolidation? I asked CEO and did not get a direct response. Perhaps for consolidation with/without Cytarabine? Will be interesting

Recently saw a potential candidate for K in this regard Much talk about performance status of patients over 60(or was it 65?) for aggressive AML treatments He came in with fatigue/SOB eventual diagnosis AML(monocytic)

An older pt with very decreased blood counts(hematocrit) renal failure etc, frail.

Lots of potential K uses- if it works

Helpful info

still need to know how good current treatment options are

Excellent!

A bit more about abacavir. The hypersensitivity issue(AHR) is exhaustively researched and prob already well discussed on this board elsewhere. Need to screen for HLA-B*57 01 as already said

other side effects(from Up to Date):

Headache 7-13%, nausea 7-19%, depression rash anxiety fevers/chills 5-6%

Boxed warning on very rare lactic acidosis

AHR avoided with the genetic screening and the allele is present in 4-8% Caucasians, 2-3% African americans, less in Asians etc

What I do not know about plaque psoriasis is how great the need is for a new drug. Anybody on the board with bad psoriasis, or know people with it, who can comment? Will ask around. I do not run into dermatologists regularly.

Also , unclear if psoriatic arthritis, a big problem, is treated also with Prurisol, or just the skin manifestations. CTIX site mentions skin only so far as I can tell

George- for RA for example, when I search IL-20 and rheumatoid arthritis, I find little, and it is older data, not so much recent, but I know nothing of this topic

Not so bad really. Compare to radiation treatment, where patients go most days for many weeks. Regular chemo as is done now is usually too toxic for more than weekly dosing.

Kevetrin so far has little/nothing in the way of adverse effects, key to frequent dosing- in addition to the short half-life suggesting need for more frequent doses for full effect

In order to understand just how helpful price predictions are for 6 or 9 or 12 months from now, look at predictions for now, June or spring, from Jan/Feb. Not close at all.

That shows how accurate the predictions are.

Sorry trying to find time to read carefully about psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis to have something to say about Prurisol. Hard to know about the impact of abacavir hypersensitivity and genetic testing

well stated

not an old timer obv, still expect to ride CTIX up, way up from here

Spare money was rounded up and placed into CTIX as high as mid 3's and down to 2.7 or 2.8 I forget.

Would be plenty happy to buy more but no cash on hand

You have no doubts about CTIX's pipeline? Sure you do. I am just trying to be realistic, that is all

Agreed and I have invested accordingly. Just trying to be cautious. Of course I like the rest of us just waiting for the data, hoping that the hints bear fruit.

Well said. Do you think anyone here will listen?

DF may want to finish the trial, since there is no MTD- who knows

The cluster ovarian and endometrial patients is NOT proof until we see data.

Could anything be more obvious?

Faith not facts

I get that there are suggestions and NO PROOF WHATSOEVER available to us.
Apparently it's difficult for the board to accept the simple truth We await more info; it's that simple.

For those that wanna take some stabilization of some patients to the bank- good luck.

I am hopeful but skeptical still

Faith not facts: As you say- we have heard of some things but there is no concrete data to allow conclusions

How many patients with stable disease?

Anybody else with any response?

Any correlation of p21, even, if we will accept biomarkers?

The answer is we do not know.

All taken on faith, not on facts

Of course share price is not a reliable indicator, though it indicates something. I was responding to the pathetic responses of other posters, that efficacy was so obvious to everyone that they would not bother to explain the proof.

As if.

Hint of efficacy nothing more, in one ovarian ca patient whose CA 125 continued to increase.....

That's IT! The share price proves there is no preliminary efficacy(that we know about)

Everybody knows this...what a joke.

If it so easy to prove then be my guest.

Your response- no. it is too obvious to prove. Like the sky is blue and the sun rises every day

If it were even vaguely true CTIX would be worth something, not floundering.
The share price is proof enough that there is no demonstrated efficacy

What a good point. Not.

Of course I am talking about what we know, we the shareholders.

Sigh

You have the stage then to demonstrate this preliminary early efficacy


Hint- if it exists, only the DFC people and Leo and Menon know it

forget prev post

do not want to have an argument about this- waste of time

Preliminary signs of efficacy do not exist so far as I know. Unless we mean for mice. We have not been shown any dose response curves from p21 and that would be only biomarker data, and we do not even have that.

One patient with some response but increase in CA125 is suggestive but not enough to count without additional info on additional patients

As far as I know.

I was considering posters anonymous

I hear you. Though I think the long term is appropriate for CTIX, I also had short term hopes, and money tied up here that perhaps should have been not invested.

So it goes. Personal errors in judgment, better not to whine. You are right.

Short v long term
I think most here agree on the long term potential for CTIX, or we would not be shareholders.

The short term is difficult The post ASCO update was a nonevent and there will be nothing to move share price for weeks in all likelihood. Some of us have no spare cash to buy shares at these prices, though would be glad to be a buyer.

hard to watch CTIX in the doldrums, or sliding downward.

June 4 NEJM/going out on a limb

Tomorrow's edition has several of the big hit papers to come out of ASCO.

You heard it here first, crazy prediction - next year's post ASCO NEJM will include an article by Shapiro about Kevetrin (and here is the IF)IF they prove efficacy.

Most of the articles are abut trials farther along- the melanoma paper, prime example.

But so much has been written about p53 and the struggle to figure out a way to use it as a target: may make it in even if early data.

Wouldn't it be nice.

(Hey : what's up with that DLT?)

Trying to read the tea leaves:

Look, I agree with you on those points , which are quite well-stated. Wish I had written it.

What else can one say: if there was some agreement with DFC, maybe things have changed?? Think about the hoopla with the spleen lesion-that was a big splash and was released, so is there a change? Hard to know why the dynamic would be different now. But they have not released the p21 data that CEO has said is positive

But there is something up, though. Look at all of those patients with ovarian and uterine cancer in the last 2 cohorts. It just cannot be a coincidence. In the halls of Dana Farber there must be a sense that something is happening for those patients and they are getting referred for Kevetrin, and it would have to be something positive. Look, I would just as soon not see this. I would rather have Kevetrin work for all types of patients, and maybe it will, and I would rather see all sorts of cancers in the later cohorts. But it stands to reason that Kevetrin will benefit some more than others(Here of course we only speak of monotherapy- we have NO DATA sadly on combo treatments, other than a statement from BIDMC that it works well with sunitinib)

Someone had a 205% increase in p21- prob later cohort

Very interesting to see what data to emerge re efficacy

Next ASCO-2016- for real data sets? Will we have to wait that long for the new protocols to get results? Probably.

I suppose then my overall sense is that there is something brewing that is good but that results are tightly under wraps. Even though there were no wraps before?!

Maybe that is what I want to believe. No inside info here.

I have misunderstood your prior posts, and will reread.

I am sure they must realize,as do we all, that increases in p21 does not mean that K will extend survival in cancer atients

Why do you say this? If they were good then why not release something?

Pretty frustrating(although I realize most others on the board do not seem to care)

And yes ffrrol- should they in fact have set this course where they tie K success to increases in p21? Isn't it possible that Kevetrin can work without such increases? Understand your concern/posts, discussed prev as I recall. They seem to believe in the correlation though

Just post for all of us then, the correlation between dose of K and p21

You cannot because they have not released it

Of course you are right. Have written CEO to say the same

It makes you wonder if the numbers are any good.

yes see red man all the timer- we give vanco lots in the ED setting

Part of the reason I think B will be a winner

Huh? Of course I do not expect B to need more than one dose. I did not say that

Vanco has a shorter half life , hence the need usu to redose vancomycin usu every 12 hrs What I was saying was in this trial they just gacve a single doe of Vanco , not many and of course a single dose of B should be more effective than a single dose of Vanco

Is that the update? The CTIX email?

Lots of people are interested in Kevetrin, we can tell you that.
But we won't tell you any relevant numbers should you wish to be an informed investor.

Maybe they could say when and where they might release 350 and 450 cohort p21 data already?

New study re MRSA in JAMA-Journal of American Medical Association.Attempt to decrease MRSA infection rates in a varrity of types of surgery involved-1 screen for nasal carriage 2 intranasal mupirocin and 3 Vancomycin plus a cephalosporin given at surgery

Admitttedly Vancomycin less of a hassle to give as a one time dose, but one can imagine Brilacidin working better(longer half life) and maybe finding a role in such situations. Remains to be seen.

MRSA rates with all 3 steps went from 36 to 21 per 10,000

Potentially a lot of doses of antibiotics use for B. Not to mention Brilacidin as potential competitor for Mupirocin(MRSA topical)

Have not read through whole article yet to hear about downsides, such as CDiff

Wording yest about the ant-inflammatories and Brilacidin OM ? They were going to see how the antiinflammatory properties of B OM did before moving forward with HS? Does that mean HS and UC off the table for now? They are not mentioned at all either? Unsure

Shall we say 2 pm eastern? If ASCO ends at 12:30 central? Eyes wide open

Sometimes, in an effort to be funny, someone ends up being mean-spirited. That would be me, occasionally. I am wasting your time and mine with posts that are no good, and I offer an apology

Allright- let's try to turn a corner. I will look around for actual medical info that can add to the board's knowledge. Failing that I will just follow slcimmuno's links.

With respect to the ASCO update- how can anyone sell today with what has to be positive news coming? I have no inside info, but connect the dots- my broken record stuff over the weekend about the 350/450 cohorts and a dose dependent response for p21 as mentioned prior in the update tells me that we will hear more about it within hours. I hope that is correct. What else might we hear?

Who knows. But if I had $300 left to spend on CTIX I would be buying now.

Mornin" FR. I would have thought my intentions were clear, a reference to to a previous post with a similar title. It would be sad if I were writing simply for my own amusement.

Looking forward to the ASCO update.

ASCO 2015: new info, summary, etc

Ok here we go:

Average age so far treated is 63 t /- 9 years. But you know, if you add 9 to 63 you do not get the age of the oldest person, which was 85, and if you subtract 9, you do not get the youngest person, aged 42. I have always said that there are lies and damned lies, and statistics.

Next up- trial subjects 26 females and 14 males: that is awfully close to 2:1, isn't it? But not quite, right? Because 2:1 would be 28 to 14 and that is not on the poster. Let's stick to the facts. OK??!? OK.

Cancer types : I believe someone has already done the math here. By that I mean, someone has gone through each of the 40 subjects, and added up the cancer types, which is a real service to the board. Can we agree on that? I always find a neat tidy summary, reflecting minutes of unnecessary work, to be helpful. Someone already did that.

So instead, moving right along, let's summarize the cohort dosing data:

3 subjects received doses of 450mg/m2, and
8 subjects received doses of 350mg/m2, and
a lot of other people, roughly 40-11, you do the math, received less

Next biomarkers.

OK I keep hearing about the 48%. That is the percent of 31 subjects who had increases in p21.

But, what is underreported is that 52% of patients had a less than 10% response to Kevetrin More than half had no response? Was that on the poster? It was. Were those the patients in the early cohorts? Maybe, but watch out: you try to put any information on an ASCO poster and you will be toast. Unless it is a tidbit that someone went up by 205% That's a lot, right? It is a lot. More than 200% is...oh yeah more than doubled. Although 205% and 200% are very similar. At any rate it is a big increase and someone snuck this data point right under those ASCO noses. Am I right?

Next ,the summary ( and this is very grand , I can assure you):

Here I would very much like to present a 1, and a 2, and a 3, and maybe even a 4, of the very simplest facts about the mechanism of action of Kevetrin. These facts would be known by you had you paid even the slightest bit of attention to any prior CTIX press releases abut Kevetrin or to the 2013 poster, to cite just one easy example. These very same facts are repeated in the ASCO poster under the SUMMARY, and then they are endlessly repeated by a variety of posters, on this board, as new information. They refer to hiphoptosis and degraded mutants, among other sordid topics. I cannot repeat them here, even though many of you you find the repetition of very old p53 mechanisms of action to be soothing.

OK so there you have it. next topic: CEO update of the the days old poster...to be continued.

What could ground the flight? Can try to think about bit about Kevetrin first. Of course there is the chance it does work so well, but let's say that it does. Cancer treatment is just on the cusp of revolutionary changes. This is not my opinion, it is that of lots of oncologists, such as a Dr Herbst head of Oncology at Yale whom I read quoted in an interview earlier today. He expects immunotherapy to change cancer treatment drastically in the next 5 years. Now you could argue that people are always saying that everything is about to change, but let's say he is right. I would like to be able to understand how K fits with CAR-T therapies. It is non-toxic, so it could be an additive to many regimens, and it seems as though it ought to provide extra anti tumor activity. Once CTIX Dana Farber figure out the best dosing I can imagine all sorts of people on the phone- or on LinkedIn- or however CEO's of pharma firms do business, calling/emailing Beverly and Dana Farber to line up a trial of Kevetrin.

This probably sounds overly optimistic- the airplane take off stuff-from me. But if Kevetrin will provide some benefit the lack of toxicity will be key to its use as an adjunct for lots of tumors.