Replies to post #95078 on Biotech Values

[sdtrond]

>>I suspect he is making reference to the fact that 50% or more of drugs approved in onc with survival data have survival HR<0.75.

It very well could be what he was referring to.
But "marginal" was a pejorative directly specific to Provenge's effect. If a statement along the lines of "Provenge's clinical effect in terms of HR was in the 40th percentile of all cancer drugs" then it'd be fine.

I'd prefer to keep the conversation to the specific indication - and since the latest conference call made the statement that no prior prostate cancer drug had made the leap of median survivial to over two years, and IMPACT came in at 25.8 months, I still find it curious how anyone can make the case that this particular drug has marginal efficacy?

Finally, please keep in mind the true nature of these trials - placebo was not truly placebo but Provenge vs. SOC + "Frovenge". I have NO clue why they set it up that way but Provenge was competing against a weakened version of itself. Even if it added a month to the median survival of the placebo arm, it affected the HR that much more.

Glad to see your extra notes re: low tox profile and prostate cancer trial issues.

Regards,
Trond