News Focus
News Focus
icon url

norisknorewards

03/06/25 11:37 AM

#752875 RE: StonkMaster #752874

provides further evidence no one here has a damn clue. Good

i will await news from the company or the MHRA, never ihub for direction, guidance, nor advice :)
icon url

2B_unknown

03/06/25 11:46 AM

#752878 RE: StonkMaster #752874

StonkMaster,
Thank you for linking such eye opening news with other possible confirmatory info.
"Superstonk $nwbo @alphavestcap" is very, very big, if all true of course could extend across the pond.
I don't know what to say other than it isn't totally surprising.
I will keep up the hope and be patient and will leave it at that.
Thanks!
TBU
Bullish
Bullish
icon url

tunnelvisionofplenty

03/06/25 12:16 PM

#752881 RE: StonkMaster #752874

Thanks! Had this conflated with another non-small cell lung cancer drug (Sugemalimab) approved in the fall. This new medicine had an extremely long duration from 1st CHM meeting to approval – 378 days, which is the second longest in my dataset (just beating out mRESVIA (371), which was approved last week, and just behind Sugemalimab (398), the longest in the set). Perhaps the lengthy review period had to do with the amount of data supporting the application (supported by a clinical trial with 1074 participants)?

MHRA has now approved 3 non-IRP MAAs in the past 3 weeks. That's as many as they approved in the preceding ~3 months. The average time from first CHM to approval for those 3 medicines was much longer than the recent average – about 347 days. It's interesting that they should have approved these 3 applications in such rapid succession, after all of them had longer than average review timelines.