Replies to post #1818 on GTC Biotherapeutics (fka GTCB)

[cesrph09]

So from this we can gather that the results may be positive, will not partner with us, which means the best we could hope for is royalty payments? The next question would be: They can't have someone else manufacture mm-093, where we would end up like we did with Tyasarbi with no future revenue?

[gym gravity]

Here are some inflamation meetings coming up...ironically, one is "GTCb". There is an American College of Rhumatology conference going on right now, but Merrimack isn't there:

http://www.gtcbio.com/confpage.asp?cid=1
http://www.rheumatology.org/
http://acr.impactlearning.org/

[biopearl]

Flo, Thanks for sharing your information. Do we know that some alternative production method might not be more attractive to a potential partner? Could you define "bombshell?" Thanks, bp

[mblimon]

By the way, thanks a lot, Flo.

[DewDiligence]

>They are looking for a major pharmaceutical (not GTC) to partner with MM-093<

If true, this is good news. GTC was never expected to more than a supplier of bulk protein for MM-093.

If MM-093 works in RA, its non-TNF-a MoA and presumably low incidence of side effects ought to put it in a strong position to serve the large proportion of RA patients for whom a TNF-a drug does not do the trick. Moreover, MM-093 should be much safer than Rituxan.

Although it’s still early, it’s not unreasonable to think that MM-093 has bona fide blockbuster potential. If this is the case, even relatively thin supplier margins could eventually mean big money for a small company like GTC (#msg-8111599).

Having a Big Pharma promoting MM-093, if that comes to pass, would mean even more money for GTC. Regards, Dew

p.s. You earned your moderator’s salary and then some today :-)

[waynebio]

Trying to make sense of this delay in MM clinical information.

I really hope that there was great trial data and a big partner would like to have the product and keep GTCB as manufacturer. I wonder if this product is too hard for even Merck to produce without GTCB. The US HD phase III can't come soon enough to give a big pharma partner confidence in approval of this drug with GTCB manufacturing.

The thing that disturbs me is the surprise that data is not being released while looking for a partner. Is this common and what is the rational? I'm sure MM knew a long time ago (before they decided to release the data now) that if the trial came out great MM would need a parter. So why now the announcement of looking for a partner instead of the clinical data? A big pharma company would want to justify any lucrative partnership with a public release of great data anyway. Usually bad data is kept under wraps and delayed.