Replies to post #128593 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

golfho, super post!

Music in my eyes. Well written, good argumentation, hyper realistic.
To that many nonsense on this board falls into less then nothing!

[cheynew]

Thanks Golfho for your thorough analysis. I wish you would post more often.

[dia76ca]

Good stuff golfho. Maybe add another $50 million to get those betabodies into the clinic....against cancer and viruses. And a few million to advance the imaging trials...which should not be costly. Then of course we have to add the value of betabodies and imaging to the calculations. Those could be very large numbers.

It is all good. Partnership followed by a buyout is probably the most likely. But a really smart BP would save themselves a lot of money by a buyout move now.

[tradero]

Thx very much golfho... Would someone please make that a stocky post?

[swg_tdr]

golfho, NEAT MUST READ, tho I doubt the 30% share of the total market for Bavi.

What is the total Oncology market today?

We get a number like $47.7B…

Let’s just say that we capture ~30% of the market (Assumes that Chemo, Radiation must be in the formula

I assume from the teaser of the research report it is just the pharmaceuticals, not the huge add-ons by the hospitals for infusion services and follow-up scans and overhead.

As to Europe, you have pricing reviews, so a 30% monopoly would be fought over there.

I'll be happy with 8 to 12% and thank you for a great analysis (again).

All the best,
NHwild

[biopharm]

Golfho,

First..thanks for your post certainly much appreciated!

I only want to revisit the topic of "probability" for success with Peregrines Bavituximab pipeline because I agree with all your other points you've made and just as placing a price value on the Bavi pipeline with a potential partner will be complex.. at least I find the "norm" of probabilities that currently exist across Big Pharma doesn't quite fit perfectly when it comes to Peregrines Bavi pipeline as it has progressed.

The above assessments place the probability of success for a biologic in oncology, that completed PII trial and needs to successfully complete a PIII and get FDA approval at (.34 X .8 = .272). Note that for NSCLC the success rate is 2%...!!!

I am not going to place a probability value on it but only want to stress that I believe that the probability of success for Bavi FDA approval should be higher than the norm and these are my reasons:

1) Not many drugs are brought forward that work on multiple indications, Bavi happens to work on multiple indications such as NSCLC/Breast/Liver..etc and one can expect the probability to increase "greatly" that Bavi will at least work on one indication.

2) Back to multiple indications and the probability: Since Bavi has been seen and proven to work on multiple indications as said: Breast/Liver/NSCLC its been given to "later" stage patients, one can think if the probability should be increased because eventually these trials will have "earlier" stage patients being placed and depending on Bavi to treat their cancer.

3) Another new "variable"... would be the safety. How many drugs (oncology drugs for that matter) have a safety profile that is comparable to Bavituximab? One should consider if the probability should be increased "again"... I would say "greatly" increased since the safety profile has followed Bavituximab across different cancer indications such as again, Breast/Liver/NSCLC

4) I have to include this one... but one has to consider the "probability" should be increased due to the perception that "someone" Fargoely knows that Bavi works besides just Peregrine.

5) This can be included with the safety profile... but one can also consider the IP of targeting PS which resides on the outside of the cell membrane. Can we also increase the probability of success because as Bavi has no need to "enter" the cell for its MOA... others such as PD-1 and PD-L1 need to "intrusively enter" the cell and I am by no way a scientist... but I'd say there would be "some" side affects of of safety when a drug needs to enter ones cell to work -- vs --- attacking PS on the outside of the cell before it exits the body.

6) Avid should certain "raise" the probability as well... since other small biotechs need to depend on outside vendors/3rd parties... and there is a risk here since you have no control over that outside CMO. We've seen this in Fargo with our CRO vendor as we had no control.

7) Raising the probability further is having Dr. Garnick, whom has been through the Avastin days and 17 FDA approvals and can not everyone is perfect.... he must have "LEARNED" much through all those years at Genentech-- though I wish we could hear his views regarding what he learned from those days till now and maybe we have seen! Avid is successful...

I am not trying to take away from the standard "probability" that exists in Big Pharma land but I don't think that whatever we truly sit at "probability" should be increased due to several of the situations stated above.

These are my thoughts on why I think Peregrines probability is much higher than what is typical for "other" oncology drugs at the same stage in trials as Peregrine. (NOTE: I don't think there is one other biotech in the same class as Peregrine which offers everything I've noted above)

GLTA!

[stockharvest]

golfho, I'm so grateful -- thanks. I have my homework now studying your post, and the added info from others. I'm so appreciative.