Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Re: Structural differences Lucentis vs Avastin

>They're really the same thing, but the NEJM figure cuts a few corners. Understandable since few docs would really care how the antibody was made, as long as it is efficacious.<

OK—agree that few readers actually care about these cut corners, but I do for my own education! Moreover, I think the structural differences between Lucentis and Avastin are inevitably going to come into play from a business standpoint when head-to-head data come out from the NIH study.

Currently, DNA can get by with saying that they know Lucentis is safe and effective, but they do not know if the same is true of Avastin in AMD.

However, if there are data in a few years from a randomized trial that show Avastin is safe and effective in AMD, then DNA may revert to making the (perhaps bogus) case for Lucentis based on its structure and origin.

What I find remarkable about the structure and origin part of the Lucentis vs Avastin debate is that the ~70% reduction in molecular weight of Lucentis compared to Avastin and the multiple-pass optimization of Lucentis’ VEGF binding affinity have apparently produced much less of a clinical benefit than the drug developers envisioned.

Does this imply that drug optimization is even more of a misnomer than most investors think?