Replies to post #129577 on Biotech Values

[biomaven0]

INCY made a big deal of their compound not hitting JAK3, but I'm not really seeing any evidence yet to support their theory.

Although maybe the incidence of infections in the 12-week VRTX trial is some preliminary support for INCY's theory.

Peter

[jq1234]

I agree about VRTX's JAK3. I don't see any additional benefit in clinical, yet. As of INCY's JAK1/2, ruxo, even at much lower dose, I just don't see it as RA treatment, it is good for hemo/onco indications. It remains to be seen whether the JAK1/2 licensed to LLY for RA will work out. Based on data we have seen, it is tough for other JAKs to beat out or just be even with PFE's Tofacitinib.

A few other JAKs:

YMI CYT387 (JAK1/2) ph1/2 MF;
S*BIO ONX0803/SB1518 (JAK2) ph2 MF; ONX0805/SB1578 (JAK2) ph1;
SNY TG101348 (JAK2) ph1/2 MF;
AZN AZD1480 (JAK2) ph1 MF/solid tumor

[mcbio]

Right, so state of play as I understand it:

PFE: JAK1/JAK3/TYK2 (with some impact on JAK2)
INCY: JAK1/JAK2
VRTX: JAK3

JAK3 is expressed only in immune cells.

Peter, RIGL is also set to go into the clinic with a JAK3 inhibitor with the key focus being for transplant rejection. They too cite the fact that JAK3 is "critical to immune system activation and is an attractive target because its expression is limited to key cells in the immune system." See: http://www.rigel.com/rigel/JAK3 .

Any comments on the use of a JAK3 inhibitor in a transplant rejection setting? I believe that's a very large market opportunity for RIGL.