Vascular Biogenics Ltd (VBLT)

[gr8db8]

wcopeland ... good post! My thoughts are:

1) I think the partnership can be either/both PD-L1 or/and PD-1. Here's an interesting research related to this topic:

"A 2015 review of all studies published on PD-1/ PD-L1 blockade showed that approximately 15% of patients with PD-L1–negative tumors responded to anti-PD-1 therapy. While this was significantly lower than the response rate in patients who had PD-L1–positive tumors (45%), Topalian stated that PD-L1 status alone is insufficient to exclude patients from receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy."
http://www.onclive.com/publications/oncology-live/2016/vol-17-no-14/biomarker-combos-may-hold-key-to-antipd1pdl1-therapy-response

I have thought that AZ may be the partner but I'm leaning more towards BMS now for these reasons:

a) The COO hire. As I've said when the hire was announced, she has the pedigree to go anywhere. Why go to VBL? It has limited funds. It is a small company HQ'ed in Israel. Basically, her strengths don't match well with the company's current needs. Unless ... something else is going on here between BMS and VBL. We shall see but I think BMS is going to be the partner.

b) BMS (Opdivo) lost big time to Merck (Keytruda) - it lost 20% of its market cap when the failed data was announced. So it's taking a shotgun approach (with its significant resources) to get back in the $15B market that is lost out on to Merck. If not NSCLC, BMS can be targeting VB-111 for glioblastoma or other solid tumors (check out this summary of where BMS is involved: http://info.evaluategroup.com/rs/607-YGS-364/images/epv-pdct17.pdf)

2) I think the big pharma will foot the bill. But a what cost? Dror is not going to give the business away no matter what the COO recommends. I get a feeling she will be negotiating as much for BMS as she will for VBL. Basically with her inside VBL, BMS gets a view to which no other big pharma has. She will know exactly what BMS is looking for and look to determine how strongly VBL fits with BMS's needs.

3) If big pharma foots the bill then why not start? It is something that VBL wants to do but has put off due to limited budget, imo. VBL is at a point at which it wants to discover other capabilities of VB-111 (now that multiple trials have indicated that VB-111 is safe in combo and comes with limited AEs).

As for the timing of the interim report. It will take some time to prepare, analyze and approve the interim data before reporting out. So I think interim will be triggered in Aug/Sep but we won't hear about it until Sep/Oct.