Replies to post #223118 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Re: JNCE

Interesting. When I looked into this one, my personal conclusion was that the preclinical data rationalized a CTLA-4 combination but did not support a PD-(L)1 combination.

Do you give JNCE a shot to show a signal in the next trial combining JTX-2011 with ipilimumab or does the fact that management didn't pick up on this combo before give you overall pause?

Not saying this one will be the winner but, in general, it almost feels to me that the pendulum has swung far too far the other way in terms of IO hype. It feels to me like a lot of the small-cap IO biotechs are being priced as if there is unlikely to be much progress in the coming years. Seems a bit extreme to me so I'm looking for some exposure here again.

[RockRat]

JNCE PD-1/ICOS combo.

The obvious caveat is that there was preclinical data to support the PD-1 combo

Well, now I'm trying to remember what I saw when researching this name for last year's charity portfolio, because now that you mention it, I can't find much in the literature that supports this combo.

Xencor and Kymab are apparently continuing with ICOS/PD-1 programs, with Xencor's being a bispecific. I know there are some pluses and minuses to bispecifics . . . Xencor will be in the clinic with theirs any day now. Here's the one poster I can find about it:

Anti-PD1 x anti-ICOS bispecific antibody XmAb23104 brings together PD1 blockade and ICOS costimulation to promote human T cell activation and proliferation

Panel B shows the activity that supposedly justifies further development. Panel D, however, gives me pause: is exacerbation of GVHD a feature or a bug in this context?

And here's Kymab's:

The combination of immune checkpoint blockers with the anti-ICOS KY1044 antibody results in a strong anti-tumour response

With more obvious benefit in models of colon, B cell lymphoma, and plasmacytoma.

Regards, RockRat