Replies to post #202473 on Biotech Values

[poorgradstudent]

You'd be insuring against a safety event that could harm or kill the patient.

Right, and that suggests the applicability of the suicide switch is more a consideration during development of this treatment paradigm.

In other words, I don't think these switches are going to be a *feature* for CAR-T therapy. My bet is they'll turn out to be like training wheels... useful as a commodity tech while companies figure out the CAR-T paradigm, but obsolete long-term.

I think they have meaningful long-term applicability in other areas, so I'm purposefully limiting this viewpoint to CAR-T specifically.

[DewDiligence]

…once the [CAR-T] switch is activated, I'd imagine there would be a switch to a non-CAR-T treatment. Why is that not realistic IYO?

Since the hypothetical CAR-T in question was presumably not a first-line treatment, we’re talking about switching a patient who had an SAE from CAR-T to a third- or fourth-line non-CAR-T regimen. In the hematological malignancies where CAR-T is being attempted, it seems like a stretch to think that a patient is likely to have a long-term remission on the third or fourth try, using a lower-tech treatment option.

In other words, the CAR-T switch that’s the subject of this thread probably does more good for the drug vendor (by saving its reputation) than it does for the patient, IMO.