Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[entdoc]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like it is Bavi 35% vs. Standard of care 22% overall response rate; and Bavi 12% vs.
standard of care 10 months of survival. with no additional side-effects adding Bavi to the mix. My take-away from this report:
1)interesting
2) small cohort
3) not really meant to establish efficacy
4) Bavi is still in the race. Safe
5) We may feel "incrementally" more confident about the safety of trying/using Bavi in other indications
6) As CP once said, using Bavi with immune system toxins is not going to be the first indication for its use
7) This trial has not shortened the distance to the retail counter
8) Bavi needs to be used earlier as a preventative/cure; may be safely used in conditions ranging from toxic or bacteremic shock to viral infections; needs results from use with irradiation; will be a safe imaging label.
My thinking in 1-8?
The overall response rate of 35% vs. 22% is a head-turner when considering the awful disease Bavi is fighting. I have said here for years that you cannot expect a chemotherapeutic agent, especially an immunologic agent, to deal with this amount of tumor bulk. In this trial it would be interesting to look at what Bavi addition does to micro-metastases, but I doubt we have the capacity to look at that.