SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : IDPH--Positive preliminary results for pivotal trial of ID

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: I. Luttichuys who wrote (1061)6/25/1997 7:44:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist   of 1762
 
Bennett, thanks for the detailed answer.

It seems as if your source's general opinion did apply to anti-CD4 Abs in general. (you wrote: "my source felt that an anti-CD4 antibody might have risks associated with it's reaction with various immune system cells" and "...my source who is also concerned about this and tells me his opinion about anti-CD4 antibodies..")

On the back-up Ab, I paste from one of the press releases (available at the yahoo site) "DEC and SB remain committed to the development of anti-CD4 approaches to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other
autoimmune diseases. In addition to the IDEC-CE9.1 antibody, a second generation anti-CD4 antibody, IDEC-151/SB-217969, is currently in a Phase IIa trial for rheumatoid arthritis. At high doses, this second generation antibody did not lower CD4 cell counts beyond twenty-four hours in clinical trials to date and has demonstrated prolonged cell coating which may be important for clinical activity and a reduction in dosing frequency."

So, it does look as if SB is allegedly supporting this new Ab. Have you heard anything of the J&J and Glaxo-Wellcome anti-CD4 Ab programs?

Thanks,

PB
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext