Biotech Values

[oc631]

CARM belatedly released their earnings on April 1ST. No accounting issues were at hand yet the company did announce a cost cutting restructuring (pipeline and workforce) along with the resignation or perhaps removal of a director. During the two year working relationship with Moderna the company seems to have come to the revelation that they are a Car-Monocyte platform company as opposed to a company focused on ex-vivo CAR-Macrophages in oncology. Their analogy is Car-Mono works like a pro-drug of Car-Macro, monocytes are being converted into macrophages within tissue, with a 5x higher dosing advantage and one day development time as oppose to five days for Car-Macro.

https://ir.carismatx.com/static-files/6fb480b2-625c-4101-9118-a0623cac87ef

There's a lot to discuss on slide 6 of the 04/24 investor presentation. The prudent cost cutting measure of halting development of CAR-Macro CT-0508 makes sense along with the continued clinical advancement of the ex-vivo oncology construct CT-0525+Pembro in HER2+ solid tumors. What doesn't make sense is labeling CT-1119 a "Next-Gen CAR (*using SIRP knockdown technology)", which targets mesothelin+ solid tumors, yet at the same time halting pre-clinical development of this program while advancing an unnamed CAR in liver fibrosis which is still in the discovery stage. For now CT-1119 only looks good as a CAR-Mono pipeline placeholder in a company trying to rebrand itself. How else can they make themselves look good? Would it be in CARM's best interest to make their sole development partner look bad?

Two years ago MRNA signed an exclusive, worldwide, in-vivo, CAR-Monocyte license for twelve co-developed constructs in oncology.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/moderna-and-carisma-establish-collaboration-to-develop-in-vivo-engineered-chimeric-antigen-receptor-monocytes-car-m-for-oncology-301456651.html

If you look at slide 6 you will see the two MRNA partnered constructs are listed as CAR-Macrophages in their pipeline. Carisma goes through great lengths to downplay their ex-vivo CAR-MACRO constructs and highlight their ex-vivo CAR-Mono constructs yet it appears there's a chance the partnered constructs may be mislabeled. If they are mislabeled is MRNA aware, perhaps condoning mislabeling for competitive purposes? Or is there a legal disagreement that may have led to the late 10-K filing in which CT-1119 is shelved and a director axed? You can read through the entire now released CARM 10-K and you will never see "Moderna" and "CAR-Monocyte" in the same sentence. Only the ambiguous, generic term CAR-M which is highly subjective.

BTW the company refuses to answer my questions on this topic.