Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

north40K, all interesting questions.

This one in particumary has an interesting answer:

The question also remains in my mind whether those PFSs and pCRs and cCRs are of a lasting nature, or whether remission is still possible/likely.
What will be the effect of Bavi in those situations?

An anti-PD-1, anti PD-L1 and anti CTLA-4 treatment that is given to a patients that at the tumour site is in a highly immune system supressive state due to the abundant exposure of phosphatidylserine (PS) does not and cannot activate the immune system at the systemic level.

We all understand why, IL-10 and TFG-Beta release and no IL-12 and TFG-Alpha. So NO LEARNING is done by immune system cells. So they CANNOT protect against remission.

Bavituximab changes that. In the case of I-O therapy it increases not only the responders foot print by activating the immune system at a systemic/global/upstream level during the treatment BUT but it also so doing puts in place the ability of the immune system to learn the problem and device counter measures for future occurrences.

The BIG difference with Bavituximab in I-O compared to Chemo is that the cell damage is lower (chemo destroys many healthy cells as well and they all expose phophatidylserine (PS) which therefore requires more bavituximab to cap it).

So Bavituximab + I-O should be more effective then with chemo. And while Dr. Brekken didn't emphasise it publicly, the pre-clinical work of the Bavi + I-O is much more impressive as the pre-clinical work with Bavi+Chemo, probably for the same reason. All results are in the AACR history. Dr. Thorpe, while doing combo's with chemo NEVER achieved the results of Dr. Brekken's "all mice dying from old age".

This will reflect in the PI clinical trials that PPHM will run.

I bet AZN is interested in answer.

By the way, I have a source that claims that AstraZeneca is trying to close its grip on this collaboration and that there is contact with Merck. She was not sure if there was a 'because' relation between both.
I cannot verify if it is true but if AZ has even the beginning of a strategic marketing division then that would be exactly what one would expect to happen. AZ by know is CERTAINLY one of the parties that know how well Bavituximab performed in SUNRISE while we have to do as expected per trial design which only tells us it was a SOC-grade performance. If that is correlated with Dr. Brekkens work then Durvalumab+Bavituximab could do wonders if PPHM stays away from chemo.

Furthermore AZ would have 'WOULD' made an offer or at least polled if they could make an offer for acquisition of PPHM in H1/2015. I have nothing confirming this either but the news is quite new although old and irrelevant by nature now.