Replies to post #72493 on Biotech Values

[ghmm]

BioMS:

Thanks for the added color.
This is the enrollment (from their PR) of the just failed RR study.

154 patients testing positive for the HLA-DR2 and/or HLA-DR4 immune response gene; and 64 patients testing negative for the HLA-DR2 and HLA-DR4 gene.

They said that in reference to analysis they met (or didn't) using dr2/dr4+ but again I would take things with a grain of salt with their liberal definition of met as < .15.

Going by the PR it looks like it was a 15 month study with patients receiving infusions at time point 0, 3 months and 9 months. Do you think that is a long enough time period?

They seemed to be using a lot of selective disclosure on the call whether they are sincere in their wanting to save data for a medical meeting or not I can't say since I am not too familiar with them. They also had one of their science guys trying to justify why the study could be negative and still not impact their SPMS Phase 3.

I wonder if the drug fails if the one brother will try to keep his wife on drug somehow? But then I guess it could fall under Zebra's law since this probably accounts for 99% of their valuation.

[DewDiligence]

Re: BioMS

There's a big difference between RRMS and SPMS.

Is there a big difference in the underlying biology? To my knowledge, the answer is probably not. Rather, the main difference is one of terminology—SPMS patients are sicker (they don’t relapse) and hence more difficult to treat.

I’m skeptical of the claim that a drug works in SPMS but not in RRMS. (The reverse claim—that a drug works in RRMS but not in SPMS— makes more sense.)

Moreover, the PR from BioMS is bearish in regard to LLY’s assessment of the program:

BioMS and its partner Eli Lilly & Company (Lilly) will continue to analyze the results of this exploratory phase II trial.

As you well know, this is about the least encouraging thing a company can say in this kind of PR. Notably absent is any assertion that LLY remains fully committed to the program.