Vector, as I mentioned to Andrew, it is my understanding that the CLTR and IDPH trials have been in low-grade NHL; while the main trials for Lym-1 have been for intermediate- and high-grade NHL. I know nothing of NHL, almost, so I do not know if the differences in grade mean that direct comparisons cannot be made. I am told (see the TCLN board and check on Davis's posts) that oncolym as being tested by Alpha (with TCLN) carries a 80 mCur (is it millicurie?) load (per some standard unit), while CLTR's uses a smaller one. This may or may not have relevance vis-a-vis low vs. medium or high-grade disease. Either way, these two (let's put mid and high in the same boat for now) may have to be considered different diseases. From one of Henry's posts here is a link with some general info on lymphomas lymphoma.org
Now, is the low-grade market big enough? From IDEC and Coulter press releases and/or 10K it is clear that (at least in the US) most people currently with NHL have the low-grade disease. There are 50-60 thousand *new* NHL patients per year in the US. TCLN people (the board, not the company) claim that 60% of *new* cases are medium-grade (maybe you already have info to confirm or refute this - I do not know either way IDEC's 10K does not address this; have not checked Coulter's filings in detail). If indeed IDEC's and CLTR's drugs in their current, tested, forms are unlikely to treat intermediate- or high-grade disease, then they will be limited to the low-grade market for a while. (these forms are: naked for IDEC, perhaps low rad for CLTR -- it that's all there is to it -- it is not, IDEC and CLTR's MAbs recognize CD20, while Lym-1 targets a different protein, an HLA-DR variant -- it is not clear what this means in terms of (1) specificity and (2) percent of lymphoma cells that carry one or the other marker)
Please take a look at Davis's posts on the TCLN board for more info and/or opinion (actually lot of opinion - but for the most part labeled as such).
PB |
