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.
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.
Well there you go. Exactly what it seemed. I agree, it’s great that 53 is focused on C1. Thanks for posting the follow up.
53 Biotech is likely just a group Dyadic has under contract for R&D, like BDI Biotech (also from Spain).
BDI Biotech has been referenced before in some Dyadic slides:
DYADIC INFORMATION 57 Ch-VLP platform Technology basis VP2 protein is a structural protein of the Infectious Bursitis virus (IBDV; Gumboro) what naturally autoassemble forming Virus Like Particles Translation Assembling process x60 VLPs VP2 protein VP2 gene (+34) 983 54 85 63 info@bdibiotech.com C/ Louis Proust, 13 47151 Boecillo (Valladolid) - Spain
53 Biologics is in the same area (Boecillo Valladolid) as BDI, so maybe there is some connection between the two. The websites look very similar.
https://www.bdibiotech.com
Also, from Dyadic's SEC filings:
Description of Business
Dyadic International, Inc. (“Dyadic”, “we”, or the “Company”) is a global biotechnology platform company based in Jupiter, Florida with operations in the United States, a satellite office in the Netherlands and research organizations performing services under contract to Dyadic in Finland and Spain. Over the past two decades, the Company has developed a gene expression platform for producing commercial quantities of industrial enzymes and other proteins, and has previously licensed this technology to third parties, such as Abengoa Bioenergy, BASF, Codexis and others, for use in industrial (non-pharmaceutical) applications. This technology is based on the Myceliophthora thermophila fungus, which the Company named C1. The C1 technology is a robust and versatile fungal expression system for the development and production of enzymes and other proteins.
Well, we knew it was coming. Still hoping it's a small raise when they do the actual offering.
The selling at the end of the day was not so unusual. This has been the typical trading behavior since this run started a few months ago. Hit the high of the day, then pull back, close 2-3% in the green. I'll take that any day of the week. I imagine this pattern will continue all the way up to the data release.
No prob! Some here and on other boards have been discussing a potential capital raise after RHB-104 data is announced. While I still think that's a strong likelihood, RedHill is ripe for some kind of licensing deal. In Edison's March 2018 analysis, they assume that RedHill will license out Bekinda for IBS-D (just finished P2) for $300M ($53M up front and $249M in milestones). Again, that is 2018. Before the end of the year. Obviously that would be a great surprise if it happened and would alleviate the need for a raise. Bekinda IBS-D makes more sense than Talicia since they don't intend to develop it in house, and qwitht he cash can take their time to develop their blockbuster drugs. Incidentally, they also assume Yeliva will be out-licensing in two separate deals worth $1B in 2020.
www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/?ACT=18&ID=20716&LANG=
Bekinda - Ph II-IBS-D
Licensing deal in 2018 after the ongoing Ph II; $53m upfront, $249m in milestones (average of two deals in IBS area over past five years)
? Target population of c 1.2 million: population prevalence of around 11%; around 30% of all patients will consult a doctor, around half will have IBS-D. Assumed that severe patients (10%) will be most accessible to BEKINDA.
Assumed 10% penetration due to highly fragmented market with branded and generic drugs.
? Pricing*: $1,260 on average per eight-week treatment, implies 50% premium to generic orally disintegrating ondansetron (only half dose as in gastritis case). Peak sales reached in seven years.
? R&D cost estimate: $4.4m for remainder Phase II (full top-line results in mid-2017), then out-licensed
? Rights: see above for licensing information. Last patent expiry date 2035
He said that the we'll know in the "coming 3 weeks".
The Chief Business Officer was on TV a few days ago explaining just how big this upcoming RHB-104 data is:
I don't disagree. But they never "announced" that a raise was coming after results, which is a big difference, and the only point I was trying to make.
You think their is a 90% chance they raise cash after RHB-104 data or after Talicia data?
While promotions of their newly acquired drugs is starting to bring in some revenue, it's still not enough to depend solely on that as their source of cash. So unless they ink some kind of licensing deal with up front cash for one of their indications in the next few months (unlikely imo) then they'll probably do an offering. I'm just not sure when they'll do it. If RHB-104 results are great and the pps takes off, Dror may not want to kill the rally prior to Talicia results, which based on past data, should be good.
I agree, if they did a raise before RHB-104 data results, that would be very bad for management. They know that and therefore I don't think it is much if a concern. The concern is whether or not they will do a raise after RHB-104 data or after Talicia data. That probably depends on how the RHB-104 data results are and how the market reacts.
Good chance they'll do a raise.
I thought that was what you were referring to. That's not what was said. Dror said they didn't have plans to raise capital prior to RHB-104 topline data. Maybe they will do a raise at some point, but they did not "announce" that they would. Very big difference:
Dror Ben-Asher, RedHill’s CEO, said: “There is tremendous energy and enthusiasm within RedHill currently as we approach two planned Phase III readouts, with RHB-104 for Crohn’s disease in approximately three months and with TALICIA® for H. pylori infection in the fourth quarter. We are attentive to our shareholders and do not have plans to raise additional capital ahead of the MAP US Phase III study top-line results with RHB-104 for Crohn’s disease. Rapid quarter-on-quarter revenue growth from our commercial activities in the U.S. and decreased operational costs in the first quarter of 2018 underscore our continued commitment to reducing cash burn rate and building shareholder value.”
When did they announce that?
Some RHB-104 patients enrolled in the MAP study are reporting very good results. Over at the biotech investor board they've posted some conversations from current patients found on Crohn's support group forums. Pretty interesting stuff.
http://thebiotechinvestor.freeforums.net/post/33080/thread
http://thebiotechinvestor.freeforums.net/post/33126/thread
Gil speaks about blinded data from first 2 cohorts.
The video is from a 2012 lecture in England so it may be old for some, but is new for me. At the 1:05:00 (one hour five minute) mark, he says how after he and the BoD reviewed the blinded data from the first two cohorts they unanimously agreed that they needed to hurry up and finish the stroke trial. He later goes on to state that he believes MultiStem will have a profound effect on stroke.
http://cdn11.castfire.com/video/387/3172/20918/2068812/2068812_2014-02-03-172312-7434-3-0-0.1024.mp4?cdn_id=15&uuid=5cd5de2dbb7dc91d203459d13ed5918e&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transplant.tv%2Fvideos%2Fmultistem-for-inflammatory-and-immune-conditions-and-transplantation%2F
Another "real" Keytruda collaboration announced between Syndax and Merck. Note not only the quotes from Merck, but the potential for both to continue the collaboration into P3 per the "agreement". This a "collaboration":
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/syndax-merck-collaborate-immuno-oncology-120000732.html
Along these same lines, I think what may be the next big event for ONCS and the whole immunotherapy sector is when Amgen and Merck release interim data from their Tvec/Keytruda combo trial. They enrolled the first patient in early December, so maybe they will have something for us later in the year...?
www.amgen.com/media/media_pr_detail.jsp?releaseID=1995881
New Seeking Alpha article out. Haven't read it yet:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3037956-oncosec-medical-has-a-promising-technology#comments_header
Remember ipilimumab (Yervoy) was already tested in combination with Tvec. That brought the ORR from 26% to 56%. This study's response rate wasn't as high as Tvec's. However, it is another a combination therapy proving to be safe and increase the ORR.
This is good news for ONCS because CTLA-4s like Yervoy have shown to come with very strong side effects, compared to virtually none with a PD-1. (That is why Amgen switched to a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor for their new combo trial started last year...also because they believe they can they can get a much better ORR with going the PD-1 route). Still, this news from LBIO is another example of a combination therapy increasing the ORR and being safe.
That hire was from last April.
Potentially good news today for ONCS:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lion-biotechnologies-announces-positive-data-100000018.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw
Lion Biotechnologies Announces Positive Data From a TIL-Ipilimumab Combination Study in Melanoma
Lion Biotechnologies, Inc.
1 hour ago
GlobeNewswire
Lion Biotechnologies, Inc.? Watchlist
11.20-0.39(3.36%)
NASDAQFri, Mar 27, 2015 4:00 PM EDT
LOS ANGELES, March 30, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. (LBIO), a biotechnology company that is developing novel cancer immunotherapies based on tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), today announced that researchers from Moffitt Cancer Center reported positive results from a pilot trial of TIL and ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. The data from the trial, which Lion partially sponsored, were presented at the Society of Surgical Oncology 2015 meeting in Houston, TX on Friday, March 27, 2015.
The Phase 1 trial was conducted at Moffitt Cancer Center in 12 patients with metastatic melanoma, with the objective of determining the safety and feasibility of combining TIL therapy with the CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitor, ipilimumab. Patients were treated with ipilimumab one week prior to tumor harvest for TIL expansion, a second time while their TIL were being expanded, and two more times following TIL transfer.
Of the 12 patients enrolled in the trial, 11 went on to receive their autologous TIL, with five out of the 11 TIL-treated patients (46%) responding to treatment (one complete response and four partial responses), consistent with response rates from previous TIL studies in metastatic melanoma. Notably, the researchers observed that following a single infusion of ipilimumab, TIL grew to higher numbers than historically had been observed in previous studies, in which ipilimumab was not administered prior to tumor harvest. In addition, only one of the 12 enrolled patients (8%) was ineligible for TIL transfer, indicating relatively high patient adherence to trial protocol.
"Ipilimumab has potential to enhance the effectiveness of TIL therapy by boosting the concentration of tumor-reactive T cells in the tumors of patients prior to TIL harvest, and by controlling disease before TIL transfer," said Sangeetha Prabhakaran, MD, the study's presenting author. "Based on the results of this study, we conclude that TIL-ipilimumab combination treatment is both safe and feasible. Furthermore, this approach serves as a model for future efforts to combine TIL with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade and other emerging immune checkpoint inhibitors."
Amod Sarnaik, MD, a surgical oncologist at Moffitt and assistant professor of surgery at the University of South Florida, added, "This is the first report of TIL therapy being combined with checkpoint blockade therapy. These results are clinically significant because they show that checkpoint blockade can be safely combined with TIL therapy, potentially increasing the clinical benefit of this promising treatment modality for unresectable metastatic melanoma."
Nice post Tom. I haven't listened to the webinar, but sounds about like how I expected it would go.
Good to hear from someone that else understands the true extent of the Merck relationship. Thanks for confirmation on the P2b patient sample size. Again I haven't listened to the call, but my understanding was that the interim data possibly to presented in 4Q was for the P2a expanded study, not the P2b combo study. Can you confirm that?
I agree that everything depends on those P2b results. ONCS is putting the pieces together now in preparation for those results to be positive. If positive, good things will happen. We still have a long way to go though.
Ryan,
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. With regard to the ONCS/Merck (non) partnership debate, there is no "opinion" about it. It is fact. There is no current partnership. I think it is important that fact be separated from opinion, especially with something like this as believing that the current relationship with a Merck is more than it really is gives shareholders false expectations. That leads to investor frustration and poor investment decisions.
On another note, it is nice to see more posts today acknowledging the true extent of the ONCS/Merck relationship.
trading.jeff,
Why would you expect him to say anything about Merck? Haven't you been reading my posts? :)
There is a pattern here by some to claim that ONCS has a collaboration/partnership with Merck and base this claim on Pierce's previous employment at Merck.
Just because Pierce worked for Merck does not mean that there is a partnership in place now. Based on all the FACTS that have been laid out in my previous posts it is pretty clear that there is not a partnership. "Support" does not equal partnership. This is why ONCS purposefully grouped UCSF and ONCS together in regard to the "collaboration" and separately described Merck's role as "support".
The above also applies to a partnership being in place simply because ONCS was able to start a P2b combo trial. Going on about how unprecedented it is for ONCS to be allowed to go to a P2b is a separate point, and while encouraging, has nothing to do with a current partnership. It's simply an attempt to distract from the facts that show that there is not a current partnership.
Trying to make convince everyone that there is a partnership/collaboration in place is very misleading and I hope those reading this board understand that. That is not to say there won't at some point be a collaborative agreement between ONCS and Merck in the future. For right not though there is not one. If there were, the details would have been disclosed in an 8K such as the one I posted between ADXS and Merck.
If ONCS can prove that ImmunoPulse combined with Keytruda can turn anti-PD1 non-responders into responders, then I think we will see some type of official agreement between ONCS and Merck. As of right now, there is nothing. This misrepresentation of the current situation is likely what is responsible for the retail investor panic/frustration seen as of late. I strongly suggest not trying to make more of Merck's current (non) role than it truly is.
Waitforit53,
Also from your link to PD's blog:
“We are excited and proud to announce this collaboration with Dr. Algazi and UCSF with support from Merck. The achievement of this milestone marks the first clinical trial to evaluate the combination of an anti-PD-1 antibody with an intratumoral therapy using electroporation,” commented Punit Dhillon, President and CEO of OncoSec."
The collaboration is with UCSF, not Merck. It is pretty simple.
trading.jeff,
I think it is the opposite. The fact that Merck obviously hands out Keytruda to anyone willing to try a combination trial negates the notion that ONCS is somehow special just because Pierce used to work for Merck. ONCS may have a good hypothesis for combining Immunopulse with Keytruda (I like that hypothesis as well or else I would not be invested/interested in this stock), but make no mistake, that did not make ONCS special to Merck. ONCS still has to prove it works, just like all of the other researchers that Merck has supplied Keytruda to.
david,
Merck will give Keytruda to anyone conducting a clinical trial at no risk/loss to them. What it means for Merck to find a partner who can increase the response rate of Keytruda is worth much more than the few dimes it costs to provide the drug for a couple dozen research groups.
"Support", which is what Merck is doing, is not even considered"soft" partnership. It is nothing.
Here is what a real collaboration agreement with Merck looks like. This is with ADXS. Notice how in the first paragraph ADXS mentions the "collaboration agreement". Towards the bottom you can see how they will collaboratively oversee the conduct of the study. Why didn't ONCS talk about that in their PR? Plus the quotes from Merck. Why aren't there any in the ONCS PR? If there is a collaborative "endeavor" between ONCS and Merck, where is the agreement?
http://ir.advaxis.com/press-releases/detail/744/advaxis-and-merck-form-collaboration-to-evaluate-investigational-combination-of-two-novel-immunotherapy-candidates-for-advanced-prostate-cancer
Advaxis, Inc. (Nasdaq:ADXS), a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing cancer immunotherapies, has entered into a clinical trial collaboration agreement with Merck, known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, through its subsidiaries, to evaluate the combination of Advaxis's Lm-LLO cancer immunotherapy, ADXS-PSA, with Merck's investigational anti PD-1 antibody, pembrolizumab.
Both ADXS-PSA and pembrolizumab are investigational members of a new class of cancer treatments known as immunotherapies that are designed to enhance the body's own defenses in fighting cancer. Preclinical evidence suggests that Advaxis Lm-LLO immunotherapies in combination with a PD-1 inhibitor may lead to an enhanced anti-tumor immune response.
"We are excited to be working with Merck. Equally as exciting is the combination potential of our Lm-LLO immunotherapy with Merck's anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor," commented Daniel J. O'Connor, President and Chief Executive Officer of Advaxis. "We believe the combination of Advaxis Lm-LLO cancer immunotherapies and checkpoint inhibitors holds significant promise for the treatment of prostate and other cancers."
Under the terms of the agreement, Advaxis and Merck will collaborate to evaluate the ADXS-PSA/pembrolizumab combination as a treatment for prostate cancer. The Phase 1 part of the trial is designed to establish a recommended dose regimen for ADXS-PSA alone and combined with pembrolizumab, and the Phase 2 portion will assess the safety and efficacy of the combination. Advaxis will sponsor and fund the study and Merck will provide pembrolizumab. The companies will collaboratively oversee the conduct of the study, which is planned to begin in early 2015. Results from the study will be used to determine the path for further clinical development of the combination.
"Collaborations such as this are an integral part of Merck's strategy to evaluate the potential of pembrolizumab in multiple combinations for a broad range of cancers," said Dr. Eric Rubin, vice president Oncology, Merck Research Laboratories. "We look forward to working with Advaxis to evaluate this novel investigational combination immunotherapy for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer."
Here is the 8K from the ADXS/Merck collaboration agreement. Read it, and then compare it to ONCS' (K:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1100397/000149315214002743/form8k.htm
What do Pierce's goals and the potential of Immunopulse in combination with Keytruda have to do with a current Merck partnership? You are just saying whatever and not making sense.
If I didn't believe there were potential with this I would not be interested in this stock and wouldn't own shares. The future potential of ONCS does not mean there is a partnership now. You can keep trying to convince yourself that there is a partnership between ONCS and Merck right now, but that doesn't make it true.
Furthermore, it is not unprecedented for the FDA to permit a company to go from a P2a safety trial to a P2b trial. What are you talking about? lol! With EP+IL-12 sure because no one has done it before, so of course it is going be unprecedented. In that case, anything any company owns a patent on and does for the first time with FDA approval will be "unprecedented".
lasers,
You are really doing some big time fishing here. ONCS doesn't need to clarify anything. For those who can read a PR and take at face value, it is crystal clear what Merck's role is at this point. You are trying really hard to make conjure up something that just isn't there. It is really unfortunate as I know many people read and believe your posts, and all this does is misinform the investor base and give them false expectations.
Everything you have posted so far supports exactly what me and Dr. Lowenstein are saying. The collaboration is between ONCS and UCSF. Who cares what Dr. Pierce says about the trial being unprecedented or his relationship with Merck. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The reason why PD doesn't talk about the relationship with Merck the way that ADXS did in their PR with Merck in the headline and quotes from Merck reps speaking about an actual "agreement", is because ONCS doesn't have one with Merck. There is nothing to report at this time.
I already did, in post 29214. I outlined and provided an abundance of examples detailing why this is not a partnership. Please read it and let me know if you have any further questions.
Thank you for posting the PR which completely supports what I am saying. The PR is about ONCS and UCSF. If Merck were the "collaborative" partner then you better believe their name would have been included in the headline. You also would better believe their would be quotes from Merck reps. Not just one tiny little mention at the very bottom explaining that Merck is handing out free doughnuts, just like they do for 78 other companies doing studies with Keytruda.
You guys are dreaming.
Good lord. What is going on here? Jacky is re-writing PRs to say what he/she wants them to say and lasers is disregarding facts in favor of the "enthusiasm" of the company's CSO. Ridiculous.
Jacky,
You are making things up. No where anywhere have they said all 3 are in collaboration to share parts of the study. Please show me where they have ever said this. Thanks. Oh, and go ahead an email merck and let's see what they say.
Wow...you are really grasping at straws huh? Insider information? What about the two lengthy posts that I just posted demonstrating the differences between the language between real partnerships and non-partnerships? You don't need insider information to state the obvious.
There is no arrangement with Merck, other than what we have been told. Merck "supports" the trial by supplying Keytruda to ONCS and UCSF. If there were something more, then they would have to disclose it. PD does not have to disclose anything that hasn't been officially agreed upon yet.
lasers,
The issue is not what Merck will mean to ONCS after positive results. The issue is what they mean to each other right now. That is what is causing all of the confusing and frustration amongst shareholders. So much angst based on misinformation. Right now there is no partnership and ONCS is one of the many trying to prove themselves to Merck.
Because there is no agreement with Merck. What would you like him to explain? Merck supplies us Keytruda? He already did that.
"PD needs to explain what OncoSec Combo agreement with Merck means if the results are successful."
You are getting way ahead of yourself. What makes you think there is already some kind of agreement in place? Even if there were, you can't seriously be expecting PD to divulge terms of an agreement with another company prior to and contingent upon positive trial results.
Hey JackyLy. Good to see you here. Email Merck and ask them if they have a "partnership" with ONCS. What do you think they'll say?
Here is what the collaboration with ADXS looks like. Notice how in the first paragraph ADXS mentions the "collaboration agreement", plus the quotes from Merck. There is no agreement between ONCS and Merck.
Advaxis, Inc. (Nasdaq:ADXS), a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing cancer immunotherapies, has entered into a clinical trial collaboration agreement with Merck, known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, through its subsidiaries, to evaluate the combination of Advaxis's Lm-LLO cancer immunotherapy, ADXS-PSA, with Merck's investigational anti PD-1 antibody, pembrolizumab.
And the quote from Merck:
"Collaborations such as this are an integral part of Merck's strategy to evaluate the potential of pembrolizumab in multiple combinations for a broad range of cancers," said Dr. Eric Rubin, vice president Oncology, Merck Research Laboratories. "We look forward to working with Advaxis to evaluate this novel investigational combination immunotherapy for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer."
lasers,
Here is something I posted on a different board a few weeks ago in response to someone trying tout the relationship between ONCS and Merck as more that it is. The first few quotes are quotes from the person, followed by my responses. The rest is self-explanitory:
"I'll say this a second time. A collaboration is a form of partnership. If you don't believe me, and you don't trust the language, read this article."
We are in agreement there. The problem is, OncoSec's affiliation with Merck is not even a collaboration at this point.
"Tell me what the next 3 words are. You're smart enough to know what a collaboration is. You can search the SEC's yourself. "
Actually I will tell you what the next paragraph says...
Under the partnership, the University of California, Los Angeles, will test patient samples provided by OncoSec using PerkinElmer's quantitative imaging platform to see if the test can differentiate responders to PD-1 targeting drugs from non-responders. PerkinElmer has developed the Vectra quantitative pathology imaging system, which measures the expressions and characteristics of proteins on tissue regions, which are then stained by immunohistochemistry. The collaborators will use this imaging-based platform to quantify and assess the density of cytotoxic T cells in tumor biopsies.
I see UCLA mentioned. Nowhere do I see Merck being mentioned.
Look at the headline at the bottom of the link you provided:
"Dec 03, 2014
OncoSec, UCLA Partner, Use PerkinElmer Tech to Develop Cancer Immune Response Biomarkers"
Again, UCLA and ONCS, but no Merck.
How about this paragraph from the article you linked:
"The company recently announced a partnership with the University of California, San Francisco to evaluate whether more metastatic melanoma patients will benefit from treatment with Merck's Keytruda when it is combined with ImmunoPulse. Keytruda is the first anti PD-1 drug approved by the FDA in September for advanced or unresectable melanoma patients who are no longer responding to other therapies."
The term "partnership" is used only in reference between ONCS and UCSF.
If you want to talk "collaborations", then here is another from the article you linked:
In its latest collaboration with UCLA and PerkinElmer, OncoSec is planning to advance the findings of the Nature paper."
Again, no Merck.
Now let's go back and look at the headline from the PR announcing the P2b study put out by ONCS:
"UC San Francisco and OncoSec Medical Collaborate to Evaluate Investigational Combination of ImmunoPulse and Anti-PD-1 Treatment"
If Merck was a partner, you could guarantee that ONCS would include them in the headline of the PR. But they didn't. Instead they said this in reference to Merck:
"Investigator Sponsored Trial Led by Dr. Alain Algazi and Supported by OncoSec and Merck Will Evaluate Combination of KEYTRUDA® and ImmunoPulse in Metastatic Melanoma"
Supported means nothing. Merck is giving them the drug for free so that ONCS and UCSF can prove their worth to Merck. That is what they are doing for the 78 other companies/institutions trying to show Merck what they can do. That does not in any way define a partnership or collaboration. If you truly believe that I am not sure what to tell you. I consider ONCS' relationship with Merck as an audition. When we get a PR from Merck, or when someone currently associated with Merck says some quotes in ONCS' PRs, then I will believe that this is a collaboration/partnership. For right now, it is nothing regardless of what Dhillon wants you to believe.
This is what a "collaboration" with Merck/Keytruda looks like:
http://www.bioquicknews.com/node/2259
Merck & Lilly Enter Collaboration to Research Combination Cancer Treatments Involving Merck’s Recently Approved Keytruda Anti-PD-1 Drug for Melanoma
"As reported by PMLive on Janurary 15, 2015, Merck & Co. has agreed to a deal with Eli Lilly & Co. to research combination cancer treatments involving Merck's promising immunotherapy Keytruda, approved by the FDA in September 4, 2014. “The two companies will investigate several different regimens that put Keytruda (pembrolizumab), part of the highly anticipated anti-PD-1 (anti-programmed death receptor 1) class of cancer immunotherapies, together with a cancer compound in Lilly's portfolio. The companies confirmed three study programs that will take place as part of the collaboration, including a phase II study combining Keytruda and Lilly's Alimta (pemetrexed) in lung cancer,” PMLive reported. Furthermore, acccording to PMLive, “a second lung cancer study, this time phase I/II, will combine Keytruda with the investigational drug necitumumab, while the pairing of Keytruda and Cyramza (ramucirumab) will be investigated in multiple cancers in phase I/II trials.” PMLive said that additional details, including financial terms of the deal, had not disclosed. According to PMLive, the Merck-Lilly collaboration highlights the importance of Keytruda to Merck's growth plans."
“Keytruda embodies Merck’s unwavering commitment to pursue breakthrough science to help people who are facing the most challenging diseases,” said Kenneth C. Frazier, J.D., Chairman and CEO, Merck. “We are grateful to the people with advanced melanoma who participated in our trials, and the scientific and medical community for the shared effort that has led to the accelerated approval of Keytruda.”
lasers,
You are joking right? There is nothing for PD to disclose. There is no partnership. That is not to say something won't happen in the future with positive P2b combo results, but as of right now, ONCS is nothing to Merck. As tradeingjeff said, ONCS has to prove their worth to merck as Merk just sits back and relaxes. Merck supplying Keytruda does not signify a partnership or even a collaboration. At this point, whether you want to believe it or not, ONCS is not special just because they are doing a trial with Keytruda. Here are the other 78 companies/institutions Merck is also supplying Keytruda to:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=%22keytruda%22&Search=Search