Replies to post #91689 on Biotech Values

[poorgradstudent]

>If money was no object, I'd launch a company and roll up all the failed immuno IP of the type I thought I could manufacture reliably. Run them into trials where I give an induction dose of platinum therapy, wait a bit until I was sure the immmune side effects had bottomed, then start dosing the immuno. <

Becaaaause... why?

All the immunos have the same type of non-targeted, idiopathic effect right now. What is the specific reason to roll together a bunch of immunos that you can't necessarily distinguish amongst one another?

[turtlepower]

But the best chemo/immuno data I've seen suggest it is better to give immuonablative chemo first to "reset" the immune system, and THEN give the immune training immuno drug.

Doesn't the data from the Provenge trials indicate that the earlier the patients get provenge in their stages of cancer, the more effective it would be? Therefore if they get provenge after chemo, will the effect be as pronounced? Plus the immune system is also likely to be weaker and with a limited immune system wouldn't provenge be less effective?

[genisi]

Most people assume Provenge then chemo, for example. But the best chemo/immuno data I've seen suggest it is better to give immuonablative chemo first to "reset" the immune system, and THEN give the immune training immuno drug.

Giving Provenge before chemo, also makes sense because many patients refuse chemo or immuonablative chemo (risks and AE) and also since like with other immune-response-modulating agents (as noted #msg-47415590) it takes time before Provenge shows its effect no?