InvestorsHub Logo

flipper44

08/15/19 9:31 PM

#239919 RE: iwasadiver #239917

Good point, and the study uses minimum follow up of four years.

Trials of nivolumab in the second-line or later setting with at least 4 years follow-up were included.



(Small correction, BMY makes Nivolumab, not Keytruda.)

longfellow95

08/16/19 8:22 AM

#239940 RE: iwasadiver #239917

And it's important to note that this is a 'landmark' analysis.

Meaning that the stats only include those that had shown an 'objective response' to Nivo by the six-month landmark point.

Pooled ORR over the four studies is 30% at best, though they do not even cite the figure. So it discounts the 70% who never responded in the first place (or responded with hyperprogression).

So when they state that 4yr survival is a pooled 14%, they are referring to 14% of 30%, or about 5%...

And the 'Long-term data did not show any new safety signals' takes the biscuit.
They should refer to it as toxicity signals, not safety signals. And the gamut of toxicities associated with ICI's is very wide indeed.

This bar is so close to the ground, that Direct should simply step over it.

sentiment_stocks

08/16/19 10:24 AM

#239954 RE: iwasadiver #239917

BMY paying for a 4 year OS follow up to their top immune therapy it kind of makes me wonder what they’re bracing for.



A DCVax data tsunami?

notbrad

08/16/19 2:09 PM

#239975 RE: iwasadiver #239917

Do we know if this study measured survival from date of surgery ?