Replies to post #209375 on Biotech Values

[Titan V]

Just to add, all patients in the upcoming p2 registration trial, and the 20 that will be added to the current p2b trial at UCSF, will be actual non-responders from previous anti-PD-1 monotherapy (mostly Keytruda). I cannot imagine MRK not being interested in acquiring ONCS (or their lead program) if they are able to produce 30%+ CRs in a larger non-responder population, esp. given this combination could be expanded to other solid tumors too.

[kld2]

I do think the market is confused about the data (much to my chagrin, I follow a ton of people on twitter and the stock boards!).

there were 9 patients who were actual non-responders from prior checkpoint treatment, 3 of whom showed complete response (33%). The currently available second-line therapy for anti-PD-1 non-responders is treatment with Yervoy which had a 0% complete response, only 10% ORR, and 35% GRADE 3-5 SAEs in a trial with 40 patients. ONCS had a remarkable safety profile.

I was reading last week about check-points inhibitors (I am in IMMU, the competitor), and I was amazed by the AES. Thirty-five percent of the participants discontinued treatment due to AES.

Thanks for your comments. K.

[kld2]

There were 9 patients who were actual non-responders from prior checkpoint treatment, 3 of whom showed complete response (33%).

Hey Titan. Are you sure they are CR? It just said there was an ORR of 33%.. Thanks.

[kld2]

Think Merck could finance part of the trial?