Biotech Values

[jq1234]

>> One aspect that confused me prior to this phase 3 data release was the aggressive moves by multiple players to enter the IDO space, their willingness to start phase 3s on limited data, and the selective disclosure of P1/2 data in some indications while not disclosing others. I figured the possibilities were either that they see something, or that they're all moving forward as a competitive / don't-get-left-behind play.


Don’t underestimate inherent bias from companies and investigators especially when it comes to IO combination. While I was skeptical of IDO and the ridiculously high valuation attributed to it in INCY case the last a few years, I thought ph1/2 data at least showed hint of efficacy although marginal (PFS HR in 0.85-0.9). ECHO-1 didn’t just fail, it showed no efficacy at all! Thus ph1/2 data were entirely due to patient selection and interpretation of response data (ORR and PFS) from combination, thus bias! I am not talking about intentional bias here. Look at Roche atezolizumab IMmotion151, the differences between investigator assessment and independent review on combination arm were staggering while relatively consistent on sunitinib arm - that’s from a relatively large ph3 trial!! That type of large differences from IO combination arm alone in small single arm open label ph1/2 trial would lead to ph3 in IO crazy era today. This is why I think ECHO-1 result affects valuation of all smaller IO players based on small datasets and open label investigators assessment.


https://www.roche.com/media/store/releases/med-cor-2018-02-06.htm